The toughest defensive era was 2001-2004

[GIF REACTION]

Fact.

No illegal defense + handchecking still allowed

If only Kobe fans could claim this timeframe as a win. Too bad being 2nd fiddle to Shaq defuncts anything he did in this time frame.

[Dr Seuss]

Fact.

No illegal defense + handchecking still allowed

If only Kobe fans could claim this timeframe as a win. Too bad being 2nd fiddle to Shaq defuncts anything he did in this time frame.

as 2nd fiddle, did teams play off kobe? did they never double team him? i only started watching the NBA this season, so please teach me.

[GIF REACTION]

as 2nd fiddle, did teams play off kobe? did they never double team him? i only started watching the NBA this season, so please teach me.
No, Kobe did get his fair share of doubles. But Shaq got a lot more. And Kobe benefited tremendously from this. Same thing playing with Dwight, Kobe stats were inflated.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Whoever won the most MVP's during this time must of been a GOAT level player.

:applause:

[TheMarkMadsen]

No, Kobe did get his fair share of doubles. But Shaq got a lot more. And Kobe benefited tremendously from this. Same thing playing with Dwight, Kobe stats were inflated.

oh so when they doubled O'neal they used Kobe's defender to do so..

hmm why not double off Fisher or Fox or Grant, or even Horry, wow teach us we have so much to learn

[TheMarkMadsen]

Kobe averaged 29.4 ppg in the playoffs during the toughest defensive era ever

Kobe led the playoffs in 4th quarter playoff scoring for b2b championships in 01 & 02

Kobe averaged 27ppg on 50+% in the finals during the toughest defensive era ever

Kobe averaged 30ppg in the toughest defensive era ever

oh wow

:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Smoke117]

Fact.

No illegal defense + handchecking still allowed

If only Kobe fans could claim this timeframe as a win. Too bad being 2nd fiddle to Shaq defuncts anything he did in this time frame.


http://i42.tinypic.com/20tgsjc.gif

[Young X]

No, Kobe did get his fair share of doubles. But Shaq got a lot more. And Kobe benefited tremendously from this. Same thing playing with Dwight, Kobe stats were inflated.And Shaq didn't also benefit from all the easy buckets Kobe got him?

[SamuraiSWISH]

Carrying on the grind it out philosophies of the Bad Boy Pistons, Riley Knicks, Riley Heat, etc. Yes.

To some extents, I agree.

But from a statistical stand point, that era coincided with absolutely terrible offense.

Poor ball movement, poor team offenses, eroding individual player skill sets, selfish star players and an influx in GMs taking risks drafting HS players ... attempting to find the next KG, Kobe, McGrady, etc.

Was a perfect storm of bad scoring climate, and some pretty good defenses. Not necessarily the best defenses.

[AnaheimLakers24]

Queens always getting spanked by shaq an kobe during that time frame :lol loser franchise

[tpols]

Poor ball movement, poor team offenses, eroding individual player skill sets, selfish star players and an influx in GMs taking risks drafting HS players ... attempting to find the next KG, Kobe, McGrady, etcs.

That's true of the east.. but not really the west. Kings were ultimate ball movement team, spurs moved the ball, Portland moved the ball etc

Yea they're were a bunch of teams who did the iso superstar thing but the top west really weren't like that at all even down to the lake4s who employed same system the bulls did

[SamuraiSWISH]

That's true of the east.. but not really the west. Kings were ultimate ball movement team, spurs moved the ball, Portland moved the ball etc
The best team defenses in that team were usually out East. Nets, Sixers, Pistons etc. Statistically. And why is that? Because there was some good defenses combined with equally terrible offenses.

Spurs weren't a heavy ball movement team like they've been in recent years. They worked through their twin towers. Portland? Meh, kinda. Kings absolutely. And none of those teams were all-time great defenses.

Like I said, it's not the best defensive era, it's the era with the worst scoring climate. Yes some good defenses played a major part of that. But atrocious team offenses, poor passing, bad drafting, young dumb player intelligence, and shooting skills that for fell off a cliff played MAJOR parts of it as well.

[ClipperRevival]

Carrying on the grind it out philosophies of the Bad Boy Pistons, Riley Knicks, Riley Heat, etc. Yes.

To some extents, I agree.

But from a statistical stand point, that era coincided with absolutely terrible offense.

Poor ball movement, poor team offenses, eroding individual player skill sets, selfish star players and an influx in GMs taking risks drafting HS players ... attempting to find the next KG, Kobe, McGrady, etc.

Was a perfect storm of bad scoring climate, and some pretty good defenses. Not necessarily the best defenses.

:applause:

Low scoring doesn't necessarily mean great defenses/tough era to score. It could be several factors, most of which you mentioned.

[GIF REACTION]

That is the classic Jordan stan rebuttal. The rule changes had a FAR FAR Superior impact on the game then so called poor offensive strategy.

[GIF REACTION]

Late last season, the league decided to drop the illegal-defense rule beginning this year -- one of three significant moves that will alter the game. No illegal defense means teams can play any defense, whereas it used to be strictly man-to-man.


The N.B.A. board of governors -- a representative from each of the 29 teams -- will vote today whether to eliminate the illegal-defense rule next season, thus allowing teams to use any defense, including the zone. To win approval, 20 votes are needed. In a straw poll two weeks ago, 22 representatives voted to pass the changes.


''I think it's a huge mistake,'' Miami Coach Pat Riley said last week. ''There's not going to be anybody able to drive. With these rules, you're going to be back in the 70's in scoring. You can't force pace.''


''It would change the sport,'' said Tomjanovich, one of the most vocal opponents of the zone defense. ''We should create a situation where great players get a chance to excel. Zones neutralize great athletic ability. People want to see guys who can soar to the basket.''

Get ****ing wrecked Jordan scrubs. You can't deny this. Illegal defense removal was HUGE.

[GIF REACTION]

Last season, the NBA did away with its confusing illegal defense restrictions and gave teams increased latitude to play any kind of defense. For the first time since 1947, teams could play zone defenses.

Keeping them coming.

[GIF REACTION]

"When we're on offense we have to realize they (the defense) are all sagged in the lane. There's no illegal D, there's no openings anywhere, they're all just hanging in there, which means ball and people movement are the keys. And in the (NBA), ball and people movement are at a premium. You do that and it's a miracle."

Greg Pop.

[GIF REACTION]

Which leads me to the next bad idea. We're hearing more and more NBA stars grumbling about zone defenses. The zone is killing scoring very much like reality TV is killing brain cells. Says the zone-busted Tracy McGrady: "Basically we're settling for more jumpers than ever. It's just tough to score that way."

T-mac.

[ClipperRevival]

Well, obviously the league would react strongly to such a drastic rule change, especially since it's never been instituted before. But the league adjusted. It didn't have the impact most people thought it would. The league countered by putting an emphasis on spacing and shooting, which meant guys can't just sag off and stay in a particular area but had to stay with their man.

Just ask yourself this. How often do NBA teams play zone? The answer is almost never. Why? Because guys at the NBA level are too good to leave alone and you can't guard a certain zone for any sustained period of time. You have to stay glued to your man, especially in today's era.

I'll admit, I'm sure the league took some time to adjust and maybe allowing zone was one of the reasons the league scoring dipped once it was allowed. But I also think it was other factors, as mentioned by SamuriSWISH in this thread.

[GIF REACTION]

lack of defensive restrictions will increase the demand for players to have better all-around skills, especially passing. Teams will need five players on the floor who can pass the ball and some good perimeter shooters. And defenders must be alert, quick and ready to make adjustments. Those are all good qualities.

This isn't proving any of your points about poor offensive strategy. Actually the opposite. It is showing how the Illegal defense restrictions pre 2001, allowed for poor and basic offensive strategies to be efficient. It's no surprise that the 80's and 90's are referred to as the clear-out era

Basically, DEFENSES got better, thus making OFFENSES look worse. Offenses didn't get any worse from a talent or game plan perspective. It was pretty much the same. When they got rid of Illegal defense in 2001, it opened to flood gate for defenses to become better. Not only was the physical man to man defense still there, but teams could now literally do pretty much anything with no restrictions.

[GIF REACTION]

Those poor and basic offenses from the 90's and the Illegal defense era, would have gotten mauled just like the offenses from 2001-2004 did. Imagine trying to pull of having only 1 good 3 point shooter ala 90's style against the 2003 San Antonio Spurs, who were known for playing a zone.... It wouldn't be pretty.

[GIF REACTION]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3PaxWILfQk

Just look at the ****ing defense

That is 90's style offense being destroyed by modern defense. Look at how congested the lane is. Constantly. AND IT'S ALL LEGAL.

[Odinn]

If you say 2001-04 is one of the toughest defensive eras, I can agree with it. But the toughest? I don't think so. There weren't many good offensive-minded coaches, also there weren't many players with elite offense. The reason 2001-04 having this low team ppg is mostly this.

[sdot_thadon]

Good stuff op, nice to see people actually doing research for their posts.
:applause:

[GIF REACTION]

If you say 2001-04 is one of the toughest defensive eras, I can agree with it. But the toughest? I don't think so. There weren't many good offensive-minded coaches, also there weren't many players with elite offense. The reason 2001-04 having this low team ppg is mostly this.
The rule changes had a much more significant impact. The offense was pretty much the same style and quality from majority of the 90's. The talent pool remained unchanged.

The offenses looked so poor because they got exposed by the defense rule changes, eliminating Illegal defense. All those teams in the 80's and 90's would have a much harder time scoring in 2001-2004. The 80's teams would most likely fare the best, but if the modern game has shown anything, you need 3 point shooting.

[GIF REACTION]

Here's a hint,

The 80's offenses looked so good because the defense was so ****ing shit. The team defense. Pretty much non-existent with the illegal defense rules.

All that motion they were getting, would not nearly happen as easily or as smoothly against 2001-2004 defenses.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Personally, I think mid to late 80s was the toughest era to score in however, it was noticeable that many of the "great players" do not have the offensive moves people have today. Overall seemed like a far rougher league and more enjoyable to the crowd.

[GIF REACTION]

I respect your opinion, but you are wrong.

[Rose'sACL]

Personally, I think mid to late 80s was the toughest era to score in however, it was noticeable that many of the "great players" do not have the offensive moves people have today. Overall seemed like a far rougher league and more enjoyable to the crowd.
It certainly wasn't harder to score in the 80s.

[GIF REACTION]

There's a reason why every team today doesn't move the ball like the Spurs or the Warriors

There's a reason why ALOT of teams could move the ball easily in the 80's

[Showtime80']

You want to know what made defenses look "sooo much better" post early 90's? Four factors: Higher salaries combined with a stricter cap, decrease in overall fundamentals due to growing influence of AAU and players entering the NBA earlier and last but most important, Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls! Scoring basically hovered above 105ppg leaguewide for 30 years until the 90's came along and it WASN'T because of defense!

After Jordan started winning titles and reacting to the booming salaries teams basically tried to emulate the "1 or 2 all stars plus role players" philosophy all over the league. It wasn't economically feasible to have 4 to 5 all-star players like it was in the 80's. Check out some of the rosters of teams that DID NOT win the title in the 80's like the Nuggets, Mavs, Bucks, Cavs, Jazz, Rockets, Sonics etc... They all had at LEAST 3 to 4 players who could drop 20+ a night combined with deep benches!

What team would be harder to stop? A team with one or two scoring options surrounded by roll players like those that became the norm post 1991 or those before that could assemble deep rosters with multiple scoring options? The answer is clear as day!

Look at the rosters of the 80's champions and compare them to those of the 90's specially the repeat Rockets of 94 and 95 which was basically Hakeem Olajuwon surrounded by a bunch of jump shooting role players! The 1986 Rockets with Sampson, Olajuwon, McCray and Lucas would've TROUNCED the 90's version.

He'll the late 80's Pistons who had the greatest and most physical defensive unit of ALL TIME in a league that let them get away with murder with Joe Dumars and Dennis Rodman in their PRIMES! Had a hard time holding teams under 100 points in that time period!

The 1980's was the last period were teams and players were built and developed the right WAY! What has come after is a bunch of rule changes that have altered the sport into a soft video game version that is displayed today!

The 80's were the Golden Age, period!

[GIF REACTION]

That's all well and good but that is 95% your opinion, and about 5% correct.

I already mentioned the offensive strategy impact, BUT it does not measure up to the effect the defense rule changes that took place.

What you just wrote is classic nostalgia, physical equals better, tough grinder mentality.

Here's what REALLY happened that caused major change.

Illegal defense started to get no-called frequently more and more as the 90's progressed. It was both a factor of the MJ/Iverson, AAU cultural impact, AND the illegal defense miscalling. The illegal defense no-calls had the much more superior impact to the so called decline in offenses.

ERGO, DEFENSES GOT BETTER, OFFENSES DIDN'T. When one goes up, the other looks worse.

There are NUMEROUS quotes from articles in the late 90's about teams getting away with playing zones which should be illegal defense according to the rules.

[GIF REACTION]

Offenses if only marginally changed. It was the improvement in defense that mainly caused it to appear as if offenses got worse.

[ClipperRevival]

Offenses if only marginally changed. It was the improvement in defense that mainly caused it to appear as if offenses got worse.

And you don't have actual data to prove that either. All this stuff is pretty subjective. Sure, we can throw some league numbers out there but that alone doesn't prove that one factor was what caused the changes. Did zone impact the game initially? Of course. Anytime a rule that drastic is introduced, it will impact the game. But the league also adjusted. The league always adjusts. Like the soft rules today gives players an incentive to flop. Let the league play more physical and you get less flopping.

This whole topic is pretty subjective. Trying to describe an era with a few sentences doesn't do it justice.

[DonDadda59]

...

Back at it again, Ballin? Thought you learned your lesson last time you went on this pointless crusade.

But if you want some personal tutoring again, just say the word. :cheers:

[Showtime80']

Teams HAVE always gotten away with playing zone since the early days, he'll the 80's Lakers famous trapping defense was nothing more than a disguised zone trap that wasn't penalized very often.

In the 90's coaches also became more control freaks due to the decline in PG play. Gone were the pass first quarterbacks of the 80's, in came the scoring PG's that have altered offenses negatively since that time. Tempo became stagnant but as Mike Fratello said "It looks better on paper to loose 96-84 instead of 120-100"! You can thank Pat Riley and the 90's Knicks for that mantra as well. Teams in the 80's played more straight up basketball, matching fire with fire sort of speak

Like I was discussing a while back, put the 90's Knicks against ANY of the 80's champions and they still get CREAMED, the difference is only going to come in tempo and the final scoring totals and that has NOTHING to due with defense. Those Knicks WOULD always try to take the air out of the ball because their only two potent offensive weapons were Ewing and frigging John Starks for God's sake! That dynamic didn't fly in the 80's but it worked wonders in the more offensively inept 90's

Basically what the 90's saw were thinner rosters with a lot less offensive firepower, a decrease in overall fundamentals, coaches controlling more of the pace on the floor and just an overall change in player attitudes, the "me" generation was in full bloom!

[DonDadda59]

Teams HAVE always gotten away with playing zone since the early days, he'll the 80's Lakers famous trapping defense was nothing more than a disguised zone trap that wasn't penalized very often.

I've explained this to him on several occasions (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=345176) but the kid just doesn't learn. As stubborn as he is stupid. :banghead:

[GIF REACTION]

Once again donald you have missed the point.

It was illegal to use a zone before 2001. I've already mentioned that teams got away with it, earlier. Especially in the mid to late 90's, which is the main catalyst for poorer offensive numbers.

It's like how you try and use handchecking as a means to your agenda against modern basketball. People still handcheck all the ****ing time today, but we still acknowledge the impact it has had on perimeter defense on a LEAGUE wide scope.

You're scraping at the bottom of the barrel here donald. You're using unique and separate occasions of illegal defense no-calls, to paint a whole era of play as such. Sorry. But the real world don't work that way sunshine. I've got as many articles supporting my claims as you do. But you know what I have that you don't? Rules. Written in stone, laws of the game.

You're out here trying to build an argument off of one off incidents that might make up 1 or 5 games out of 82 for 30 SEPARATE TEAMS of a grand total of 1200+ GAMES IN A SEASON.

Just stop.

[DonDadda59]

Once again donald you have missed the point.

It was illegal to use a zone before 2001. I've already mentioned that teams got away with it, earlier. Especially in the mid to late 90's, which is the main catalyst for poorer offensive numbers.

It's like how you try and use handchecking as a means to your agenda against modern basketball. People still handcheck all the ****ing time today, but we still acknowledge the impact it has had on perimeter defense on a LEAGUE wide scope.

You're scraping at the bottom of the barrel here donald. You're using unique and separate occasions of illegal defense no-calls, to paint a whole era of play as such. Sorry. But the real world don't work that way sunshine. I've got as many articles supporting my claims as you do. But you know what I have that you don't? Rules. Written in stone, laws of the game.

You're out here trying to build an argument off of one off incidents that might make up 1 or 5 games out of 82 for 30 SEPARATE TEAMS of a grand total of 1200+ GAMES IN A SEASON.

Just stop.

Since the rule changes back in '01 teams play 'zone' less than 3% of total possessions. League-wide scoring rose every year since then. League-wide eFG% is at its highest level ever while APG is down from the mid 90s (similar pace).

What tangible proof do you have to back up anything you say?

All the beautiful people here will be waiting for you to wow us with your thorough research. Don't let us down. :cheers:

[GIF REACTION]

Since the rule changes back in '01 teams play 'zone' less than 3% of total possessions. League-wide scoring rose every year since then. League-wide eFG% is at its highest level ever while APG is down from the mid 90s (similar pace).

What tangible proof do you have to back up anything you say?

All the beautiful people here will be waiting for you to wow us with your thorough research. Don't let us down. :cheers:
And I knew you were going to reference zone statistics. We are back where we've always been. How do you measure a zone? You know as well as I do when I say zone I mean any form of defense, whatever it may be, that would be considered otherwise illegal, under the old Illegal Defense guidelines. This goes for sagging off, covering the lane, help defense, shading the lane, zone sandwiching, etc. Don't try and play dumb and act like when we say zone we mean 2-3 and 3-2 or 1-3-1 and that's it. I'm seeing the bias and holes in your agenda clearly.

And those offensive rise in numbers need to be taken into context.

[DonDadda59]

And I knew you were going to reference zone statistics. We are back where we've always been. How do you measure a zone? You know as well as I do when I say zone I mean any form of defense, whatever it may be, that would be considered otherwise illegal, under the old Illegal Defense guidelines. This goes for sagging off, covering the lane, help defense, shading the lane, zone sandwiching, etc. Don't try and play dumb and act like when we say zone we mean 2-3 and 3-2 or 1-3-1 and that's it. I'm seeing the bias and holes in your agenda clearly.

Zone sandwich :roll:

All of those tactics were used prior to the rule changes, without the handicap of having to clear out the paint every 2.9 seconds or not being able to physically impede a defender. :confusedshrug:

A zone is a specific thing, not some bullshit made up by clueless internet nerds with names like 'zone sandwich'. I wonder is Coach K's playbook contains any zone sandwich packages. :lol


And those offensive rise in numbers need to be taken into context.

Go ahead and fill us in on the specifics of this context.

Can't wait.

[GIF REACTION]

Zone sandwich :roll:

All of those tactics were used prior to the rule changes, without the handicap of having to clear out the paint every 2.9 seconds or not being able to physically impede a defender. :confusedshrug:

A zone is a specific thing, not some bullshit made up by clueless internet nerds with names like 'zone sandwich'. I wonder is Coach K's playbook contains any zone sandwich packages. :lol



Go ahead and fill us in on the specifics of this context.

Can't wait.
You do realize that the 3 in the key rule was part of the illegal defense rules? It has always been there.

Do you realize the topic of this thread? A period of time in which handchecking was still the same as it was from the 80's and the 90's, when they first brought in handchecking laws in 1980? Why are you even mentioning this?

Would you want me to call it "Acts of illegal defense"? Zone is an easier terminology that can be stretched out to mean a number of things.

[GIF REACTION]

Removal of Illegal defense has had a huge impact of the NBA, whether you like it or not.

[Showtime80']

The 80's teams and players would've LOVED playing under the post 2001 rules specially with NO DOMINANT centers patrolling the paint and having wide open lanes to work with! The 86 Celtics would be blowing teams out by 20 in every game by mid third quarter in today's pathetic East!

You have to remember virtually ALL of the players from that era played at least 2 years of NCAA basketball under a HARD TRUE ZONE, no shot clock, no 3 point line, clogged lanes with no spacing in a time were college basketball was STACKED!!! And guess what? They all excelled!!!

Today's NBA rules are an artificial way to hide the long list of modern deficiencies the modern players have, ALL ATHLETICISM with low IQ and fundamentals. The NBA was FORCED to change the rules because of the modern player decrease in basic skill set compared to those of the past!

[GIF REACTION]

Oh my god shut the **** up with your nostalgia

[DonDadda59]

Removal of Illegal defense has had a huge impact of the NBA, whether you like it or not.

So in other words... (https://youtu.be/j8nZBlPfR7Y?t=1m)

[GIF REACTION]

I got more then you pal.

You got articles with quotes from one off games every now and then, out of 1200+ games a season....

[West-Side]

Since the rule changes back in '01 teams play 'zone' less than 3% of total possessions. League-wide scoring rose every year since then. League-wide eFG% is at its highest level ever while APG is down from the mid 90s (similar pace).

What tangible proof do you have to back up anything you say?

All the beautiful people here will be waiting for you to wow us with your thorough research. Don't let us down. :cheers:

What??

2001 - 94.8 PPG, .443 FG%, .473 eFG%
2002 - 95.5 PPG, .445 FG%, .477 eFG%
2003 - 95.1 PPG, .442 FG%, .474 eFG%
2004 - 93.4 PPG, .439 FG%, .471 eFG%
2005 - 97.2 PPG, .447 FG%, .482 eFG%
2006 - 97.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .490 eFG%
2007 - 98.7 PPG, .458 FG%, .496 eFG%
2008 - 99.9 PPG, .457 FG%, .497 eFG%
2009 - 100.0 PPG, .459 FG%, .500 eFG%
2010 - 100.4 PPG, .461 FG%, .501 eFG%
2011 - 99.6 PPG, .459 FG%, .498 eFG%
2012 - 96.3 PPG, .448 FG%, .487 eFG%
2013 - 98.1 PPG, .453 FG%, .496 eFG%
2014 - 101.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .501 eFG%
2015 - 100.0 PPG, .449 FG%, .496 eFG%

1) League scoring hasn't gone up every year; it actually fluctuated quite a bit since 2001.
2) League's eFG% isn't the highest its ever been. :rolleyes:

In 1995 it was .500
In 1996 it was .499
In 1998 it was .511

Despite from 1980 to 2000 the eFG% was roughly .490; since 2001, it is roughly the same.

However, teams from 1980 to 2000 on average attempted 400-600 3's a game while teams from 2001 - 2015 attempted nearly 1500.

Which inflates eFG%.
The average PPG & FG% is substantially higher from 1980 - 2000 than they are from 2001 - 2015 while having nearly identical eFG%. :oldlol:

Oh year, the rules really make it easier to score. :sleeping

[GIF REACTION]

What??

2001 - 94.8 PPG, .443 FG%, .473 eFG%
2002 - 95.5 PPG, .445 FG%, .477 eFG%
2003 - 95.1 PPG, .442 FG%, .474 eFG%
2004 - 93.4 PPG, .439 FG%, .471 eFG%
2005 - 97.2 PPG, .447 FG%, .482 eFG%
2006 - 97.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .490 eFG%
2007 - 98.7 PPG, .458 FG%, .496 eFG%
2008 - 99.9 PPG, .457 FG%, .497 eFG%
2009 - 100.0 PPG, .459 FG%, .500 eFG%
2010 - 100.4 PPG, .461 FG%, .501 eFG%
2011 - 99.6 PPG, .459 FG%, .498 eFG%
2012 - 96.3 PPG, .448 FG%, .487 eFG%
2013 - 98.1 PPG, .453 FG%, .496 eFG%
2014 - 101.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .501 eFG%
2015 - 100.0 PPG, .449 FG%, .496 eFG%

1) League scoring hasn't gone up every year; it actually fluctuated quite a bit since 2001.
2) League's eFG% isn't the highest its ever been. :rolleyes:

In 1995 it was .500
In 1996 it was .499
In 1998 it was .511

Despite from 1980 to 2000 the eFG% was roughly .490; since 2001, it is roughly the same.

However, teams from 1980 to 2000 on average attempted 400-600 3's a game while teams from 2001 - 2015 attempted nearly 1500.

Which inflates eFG%.
The average PPG & FG% is substantially higher from 1980 - 2000 than they are from 2001 - 2015 while having nearly identical eFG%. :oldlol:

Oh year, the rules really make it easier to score. :sleeping
****ING OWNED.

So we got stats, rules, and articles.

Don just got articles.

[West-Side]

The 80's teams and players would've LOVED playing under the post 2001 rules specially with NO DOMINANT centers patrolling the paint and having wide open lanes to work with! The 86 Celtics would be blowing teams out by 20 in every game by mid third quarter in today's pathetic East!

You have to remember virtually ALL of the players from that era played at least 2 years of NCAA basketball under a HARD TRUE ZONE, no shot clock, no 3 point line, clogged lanes with no spacing in a time were college basketball was STACKED!!! And guess what? They all excelled!!!

Today's NBA rules are an artificial way to hide the long list of modern deficiencies the modern players have, ALL ATHLETICISM with low IQ and fundamentals. The NBA was FORCED to change the rules because of the modern player decrease in basic skill set compared to those of the past!

:roll:

[GIF REACTION]

Also check out how little an impact the so called handchecking rules in 2005 had...

Only a slight difference in total league eFG%

People, especially jordan stans, make it out to be SO much more.

The offensive strategy adaption to modern defenses is what has caused most change in scoring output/efficiency. Teams have finally learned the value of 3 point shooting.

[DonDadda59]

What??

2001 - 94.8 PPG, .443 FG%, .473 eFG%
2002 - 95.5 PPG, .445 FG%, .477 eFG%
2003 - 95.1 PPG, .442 FG%, .474 eFG%
2004 - 93.4 PPG, .439 FG%, .471 eFG%
2005 - 97.2 PPG, .447 FG%, .482 eFG%
2006 - 97.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .490 eFG%
2007 - 98.7 PPG, .458 FG%, .496 eFG%
2008 - 99.9 PPG, .457 FG%, .497 eFG%
2009 - 100.0 PPG, .459 FG%, .500 eFG%
2010 - 100.4 PPG, .461 FG%, .501 eFG%
2011 - 99.6 PPG, .459 FG%, .498 eFG%
2012 - 96.3 PPG, .448 FG%, .487 eFG%
2013 - 98.1 PPG, .453 FG%, .496 eFG%
2014 - 101.0 PPG, .454 FG%, .501 eFG%
2015 - 100.0 PPG, .449 FG%, .496 eFG%

1) League scoring hasn't gone up every year; it actually fluctuated quite a bit since 2001.
2) League's eFG% isn't the highest its ever been. :rolleyes:

In 1995 it was .500
In 1996 it was .499
In 1998 it was .511

Despite from 1980 to 2000 the eFG% was roughly .490; since 2001, it is roughly the same.

However, teams from 1980 to 2000 on average attempted 400-600 3's a game while teams from 2001 - 2015 attempted nearly 1500.

Which inflates eFG%.
The average PPG & FG% is substantially higher from 1980 - 2000 than they are from 2001 - 2015 while having nearly identical eFG%. :oldlol:

Oh year, the rules really make it easier to score. :sleeping

Here are the facts-

1) 7 of the 10 highest eFG% seasons of all time have been from the 2000s. 2 were from the mid 90s when the 3 point line was moved closer. 1 was from the mid 80s. You're a blatant liar and I have no idea where you got the idea the eFG in '98 was .511 :wtf:


The highest eFG% season was '13-'14.

2) You just proved my point. The league-wide PPG went from 95 to 101 from '01 to '14 and the eFG% went from .47 range to the .5 range.

Offenses are scoring more, at a higher rate on better percentages and have consistently done so since the rule changes. Thanks for illuminating that. :cheers:

[West-Side]

Also check out how little an impact the so called handchecking rules in 2005 had...

Only a slight difference in total league eFG%

People, especially jordan stans, make it out to be SO much more.

The offensive strategy adaption to modern defenses is what has caused most change in scoring output/efficiency. Teams have finally learned the value of 3 point shooting.

It doesn't even matter; I particularly loved how Don used eFG%.
A statistic that ADJUSTS the percentage in favor of era's that attempt more 3 point shots.

In essence;

In 1985:

If Bird shot 10 for 20 (50%) and 1 for 2 (50%)
For a total of 11 for 22 (50%) his eFG% would be .523

If Kobe shot 3 for 12 (25%) and 4 for 5 (80%)
For a total of 7 for 17 (41%) his eFG% would be .529

Since players today take WAY more 3 point shots; they have a much greater chance of inflating eFG%. Players back then didn't take nearly as many 3 point shots which is why the PPG & FG% was much much higher. Why? Perhaps because the rules made it easier to score closer to the rim. :rolleyes:

[DonDadda59]

****ING OWNED.

So we got stats, rules, and articles.

Don just got articles.

All the stats (the ones he didn't lie about) just proved my point :roll:

Teams have been consistently scoring more, on better percentages since the rule changes. Dude spelled it out for you but you think it's some sort of victory.


Also check out how little an impact the so called handchecking rules in 2005 had...

Those rules were geared specifically towards making life easier for perimeter players, and that's exactly what happened. Tell me how many perimeter players all of a sudden had career best scoring years that season.

[GIF REACTION]

So it's easier to score today because players are better shooters?

I don't see how this helps your agenda Don

[Showtime80']

The value of 3 shooting?!? You mean 3 point shooting has become the ONLY viable way for modern teams to even break 90 points!!!

Remove the 3 point line in the 80's, teams would've still scored in the 100's with ease

Remove the 3 point line from today's NBA and I fear the scores would dip down into the 80-90 point range.

Nice of you to mention 2001 as your demarcation point since that was the year the Philadelphia 76ers made it to the Finals with the most FLAWED AND OFFENSIVELY inept roster the likes of which was never been before or since.

Hell of an era when you've got got a 5'10 brick laying inefficient player like Iverson leading a collection of stiffs all the way to the Finals! LOL! Don't even get me started in the Nets!!!

The late 90's to mid 2000's were the worst period since the 70's and the reason the NBA decided to alter its product to the unrecognizable "layup or 3 pointer festival" we have today. Thank you Iverson, Kidd, Carter, Francis, Marbury and McGrady for such a wonderful period! NOT!!!!!

[GIF REACTION]

The value of 3 shooting?!? You mean 3 point shooting has become the ONLY viable way for modern teams to even break 90 points!!!

Remove the 3 point line in the 80's, teams would've still scored in the 100's with ease

Remove the 3 point line from today's NBA and I fear the scores would dip down into the 80-90 point range.

Nice of you to mention 2001 as your demarcation point since that was the year the Philadelphia 76ers made it to the Finals with the most FLAWED AND OFFENSIVELY inept roster the likes of which was never been before or since.

Hell of an era when you've got got a 5'10 brick laying inefficient player like Iverson leading a collection of stiffs all the way to the Finals! LOL! Don't even get me started in the Nets!!!

The late 90's to mid 2000's were the worst period since the 70's and the reason the NBA decided to alter its product to the unrecognizable "layup or 3 pointer festival" we have today. Thank you Iverson, Kidd, Carter, Francis, Marbury and McGrady for such a wonderful period! NOT!!!!!
I don't even know what you're yapping about old man.

I think you're proving my point here.

[DonDadda59]

So it's easier to score today because players are better shooters?

I don't see how this helps your agenda Don

What are you even arguing at this point? :lol

Since the rule changes, scoring has gone up by 6 PPG, eFG% has shot up by 3%.

The facts show that since illegal defenses were eliminated (and the 3 sec rule, handchecking rules were introduced), teams are scoring more on better percentages. This is all on paces that have stayed consistently in the 91-93 range.

But defenses are better now :yaohappy:

[GIF REACTION]

How many times do I have to tell you?

Yes, standing in the paint for 3 seconds without guarding anyone was illegal in Jordan's era as well. The defensive 3 second violation has always been there. It was part of the illegal defense guidelines. When illegal defense was removed, that one part was leftover and renamed the "defensive 3 second" violation, but it's not actually a new rule.

[West-Side]

Here are the facts-

1) 7 of the 10 highest eFG% seasons of all time have been from the 2000s. 2 were from the mid 90s when the 3 point line was moved closer. 1 was from the mid 80s. You're a blatant liar and I have no idea where you got the idea the eFG in '98 was .511 :wtf:


The highest eFG% season was '13-'14.

2) You just proved my point. The league-wide PPG went from 95 to 101 from '01 to '14 and the eFG% went from .47 range to the .5 range.

Offenses are scoring more, at a higher rate on better percentages and have consistently done so since the rule changes. Thanks for illuminating that. :cheers:

How are they scoring more on better percentages you moron??

The PPG, 2PT% & FG% were much higher in the 80's and 90's compared to 2001 to 2015.

You do realize that eFG% is man made formula that accounts for the number of three point shots you take? The more 3 point shots you take, the higher your eFG% will be (keeping the 3PT% constant). :roll:

Here's a clue "Don"

1980 - 227 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.486 eFG% - 109.3 PPG - .481 FG%
1985 - 257 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 110.2 PPG - .491 FG%]
1990 - 541 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.489 eFG% - 107 PPG - .476 FG%]
1995 - 1255 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.500 eFG% - 101 PPG - .466 FG%]
2000 - 1125 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.478 eFG% - 97.5 PPG - .449 FG%]
2005 - 1292 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.482 eFG% - 97.2 PPG - .447 FG%]
2010 - 1487 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.501 eFG% - 100.4 PPG - .461 FG%]
2015 - 1838 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 100.0 PPG - .449]


Your precious eFG% works as such: (FGM + .5 * 3PTM) / FGA
It gives an arbitrary extra half a point for any 3 point made.

So basically if you attempt more 3 point shots; you have a better chance of inflating your eFG%.

The PPG from 2001 - 2015 is substantially down so is the efficiency (both 2PT% and FG%).

Also there is like absolutely no difference in eFG% to begin with despite teams taking 1000+ more 3 point shots a season. :roll:

Anything else?
Look at the numbers I posted and try to see a clear correlation in eFG% change. FG% and the amount of 3 point shots attempted directly impacts eFG%.

That doesn't mean the scoring has increased since 2001 (compared to the 80's or 90's) nor the efficiency. In fact, the scoring has substantially decreased and so has the efficiency.

This forum, I tell ya! :hammerhead:

[West-Side]

The value of 3 shooting?!? You mean 3 point shooting has become the ONLY viable way for modern teams to even break 90 points!!!

Remove the 3 point line in the 80's, teams would've still scored in the 100's with ease

Remove the 3 point line from today's NBA and I fear the scores would dip down into the 80-90 point range.

Nice of you to mention 2001 as your demarcation point since that was the year the Philadelphia 76ers made it to the Finals with the most FLAWED AND OFFENSIVELY inept roster the likes of which was never been before or since.

Hell of an era when you've got got a 5'10 brick laying inefficient player like Iverson leading a collection of stiffs all the way to the Finals! LOL! Don't even get me started in the Nets!!!

The late 90's to mid 2000's were the worst period since the 70's and the reason the NBA decided to alter its product to the unrecognizable "layup or 3 pointer festival" we have today. Thank you Iverson, Kidd, Carter, Francis, Marbury and McGrady for such a wonderful period! NOT!!!!!

Ah so you're saying players from the 70's - 90's were SO MUCH better that the rules changed in order to help today's players score more and they still can't do that? :hammerhead: :roll:

[GIF REACTION]

How are they scoring more on better percentages you moron??

The PPG, 2PT% & FG% were much higher in the 80's and 90's compared to 2001 to 2015.

You do realize that eFG% is man made formula that accounts for the number of three point shots you take? The more 3 point shots you take, the higher your eFG% will be (keeping the 3PT% constant). :roll:

Here's a clue "Don"

1980 - 227 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.486 eFG% - 109.3 PPG - .481 FG%
1985 - 257 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 110.2 PPG - .491 FG%]
1990 - 541 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.489 eFG% - 107 PPG - .476 FG%]
1995 - 1255 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.500 eFG% - 101 PPG - .466 FG%]
2000 - 1125 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.478 eFG% - 97.5 PPG - .449 FG%]
2005 - 1292 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.482 eFG% - 97.2 PPG - .447 FG%]
2010 - 1487 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.501 eFG% - 100.4 PPG - .461 FG%]
2015 - 1838 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 100.0 PPG - .449]


Your precious eFG% works as such: (FGM + .5 * 3PTM) / FGA
It gives an arbitrary extra half a point for any 3 point made.

So basically if you attempt more 3 point shots; you have a better chance of inflating your eFG%.

The PPG from 2001 - 2015 is substantially down so is the efficiency (both 2PT% and FG%).

Also there is like absolutely no difference in eFG% to begin with despite teams taking 1000+ more 3 point shots a season. :roll:

Anything else?
Look at the numbers I posted and try to see a clear correlation in eFG% change. FG% and the amount of 3 point shots attempted directly impacts eFG%.

That doesn't mean the scoring has increased since 2001 (compared to the 80's or 90's) nor the efficiency. In fact, the scoring has substantially decreased and so has the efficiency.

This forum, I tell ya! :hammerhead:
http://media.giphy.com/media/1jnyRP4DorCh2/giphy.gif

DON DEAD. BURY HIM 6 FEET DEEP. GET THE TOMBSTONE. IT'S OVA!

[Showtime80']

You want to know why players from the 80's scored more efficiently? Solid fundamentals, IQ and keeping the game basic! And also the fact that the 80's players didn't grow up with the "I wanna be like Mike" syndrome which turned even 7' footers into perimeter oriented pu!!ies in the generations after. Big players back then played BIG and developed their post and mid range game instead of camping out at the 3 point line waiting for a pass ala Kevin "Steve Kerr" Love last year in Cleveland

Rasheed Wallace is to me the perfect example of why the modern player is so inefficient. A guy who could score down low AT WILL and at times no NO ONE could stop down low. What happened? Like most modern players he decided to complicate the game for himself and his teams by forcing long jumpers and 3 pointers more and more often! A guy that could've rivaled Tim Duncan if he just kept the game SIMPLE!

You think James Worthy, Adrian Dantley, Alex English or Bernard King would've limited their games by trying to be 3 point shooters?!? Hell no! They were gonna stick to their bread and butter and tear the defense a new one from inside 18 feet!

80's players maximized their skills and made life hell for opposing defenses, modern players make the game hard for themselves!

[West-Side]

You want to know why players from the 80's scored more efficiently? Solid fundamentals, IQ and keeping the game basic! And also the fact that the 80's players didn't grow up with the "I wanna be like Mike" syndrome which turned even 7' footers into perimeter oriented pu!!ies in the generations after. Big players back then played BIG and developed their post and mid range game instead of camping out at the 3 point line waiting for a pass ala Kevin "Steve Kerr" Love last year in Cleveland

Rasheed Wallace is to me the perfect example of why the modern player is so inefficient. A guy who could score down low AT WILL and at times no NO ONE could stop down low. What happened? Like most modern players he decided to complicate the game for himself and his teams by forcing long jumpers and 3 pointers more and more often! A guy that could've rivaled Tim Duncan if he just kept the game SIMPLE!

You think James Worthy, Adrian Dantley, Alex English or Bernard King would've limited their games by trying to be 3 point shooters?!? Hell no! They were gonna stick to their bread and butter and tear the defense a new one from inside 18 feet!

80's players maximized their skills and made life hell for opposing defenses, modern players make the game hard for themselves!

Chris Mullin shot a career .533 from 2PT%; LeBron James has a career .535 from 2PT%. LeBron scores a lot of his points from transition, dunks and layups. Mullin was a perimeter player and he still shot nearly as well as LeBron.

You honestly think that had nothing to do with the lack of defensive pressure?

Please one of the most famous shots in NBA history was Jordan over Russell. Do you remember Kobe's shot against Phoenix Suns?

What's the difference, tell me????

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jordan-finals-shot.jpg

http://espn.go.com/photo/2006/0430/nba_g_bryant_395.jpg

[GIF REACTION]

[QUOTE]Team scoring averages had gone down annually since the early '90s, primarily because of an emphasis on defense, sophistication of defensive schemes and the proliferation of scouting. With the old illegal-defense rules almost indecipherable

[DonDadda59]

How are they scoring more on better percentages you moron??

The PPG, 2PT% & FG% were much higher in the 80's and 90's compared to 2001 to 2015.

Pace, broseph. And how do you go on a long-winded diatribe about 3 pt shooting, and then point out FG%? Of course if you take far less 3s your FG% will be higher, hence why using eFG% makes more sense. :confusedshrug:

The Bulls 2nd 3-peat era through the 2001 rule changes:

'95-'96: 99.5 PPG/.499 eFG% *3 Pt line moved closer)
'96-'97: 96.9 PPG/.493 eFG%
'97-'98: 95.6 PPG/.478 eFG%
'98-'99: 91.6 PPG/.446 eFG%
'99-'00: 97.5 PPG/.478 eFG%
'00-'01: 94.8 PPG/.473 eFG%

Notice how the # across the board were on a downward trend, then like magic when the rule changes happened they started trending upwards.

Which is exactly what the NBA was attempting to do. That's what's lost on guys like you and Ballin. The NBA wasn't trying to make scoring harder. It was explicitly the exact opposite. The league wanted more scoring, faster pace, a more open game.

And that's exactly what they got.


You do realize that eFG% is man made formula that accounts for the number of three point shots you take? The more 3 point shots you take, the higher your eFG% will be (keeping the 3PT% constant). :roll:


And the less 3s you take, generally the higher FG% you'll have. This is basic shit. :confusedshrug:

eFG% takes everything into consideration but adds more weight the more 3s you take.


Here's a clue "Don"

1980 - 227 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.486 eFG% - 109.3 PPG - .481 FG%
1985 - 257 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 110.2 PPG - .491 FG%]
1990 - 541 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.489 eFG% - 107 PPG - .476 FG%]
1995 - 1255 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.500 eFG% - 101 PPG - .466 FG%]
2000 - 1125 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.478 eFG% - 97.5 PPG - .449 FG%]
2005 - 1292 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.482 eFG% - 97.2 PPG - .447 FG%]
2010 - 1487 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.501 eFG% - 100.4 PPG - .461 FG%]
2015 - 1838 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 100.0 PPG - .449]


Your precious eFG% works as such: (FGM + .5 * 3PTM) / FGA
It gives an arbitrary extra half a point for any 3 point made.

So basically if you attempt more 3 point shots; you have a better chance of inflating your eFG%.


Yes, teams take more 3s now than ever. This isn't some new revelation. Which is why it makes sense to use a measure that takes that into account.



The PPG from 2001 - 2015 is substantially down so is the efficiency (both 2PT% and FG%).

What the hell are you talking about?

How is going from 95 PPG to 101 PPG (same general pace) 'substantially down'? :wtf:

[DonDadda59]

It definitely is harder for an individual talent to score with no illegal defense.

2005-2006 (AKA the first year of the no touching rules) says hello. :lol

[GIF REACTION]

2005-2006 (AKA the first year of the no touching rules) says hello. :lol
I was referencing to the actual thread topic of 2001-2004, before the handcheck rule in 05.

[DonDadda59]

I was referencing to the actual thread topic of 2001-2004, before the handcheck rule in 05.

And then you quoted T-Mac worrying about being stifled by 'zone' defense'.

The same T-Mac who would go on to have his career best scoring season in 2003 :yaohappy:

[West-Side]

It definitely is harder for an individual talent to score with no illegal defense.

I don't know what these fools are talking about, seriously.
The game has evolved and it's far more difficult to score than it was 20 years ago. Strategies are adjusted over time and rules change.

Players are stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.
As much as I love Magic; I don't see him averaging close to the .541 2PT% he did for his career. He just wasn't dynamic enough or athletic enough to do that today.

http://media.giphy.com/media/bVPj51prJzVx6/giphy.gif

I just can't imagine Kobe, Wade, LeBron etc. being able to do that move today without getting their shit blocked.

[DonDadda59]

I don't know what these fools are talking about, seriously.
The game has evolved and it's far more difficult to score than it was 20 years ago. Strategies are adjusted over time and rules change.

Players are stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.
As much as I love Magic; I don't see him averaging close to the .541 2PT% he did for his career. He just wasn't dynamic enough or athletic enough to do that today.

http://media.giphy.com/media/bVPj51prJzVx6/giphy.gif

I just can't imagine Kobe, Wade, LeBron etc. being able to do that move today without getting their shit blocked.

:biggums:

I've seen Curry (AKA Mr. MVP...the bigger stronger version of Magic :roll: ) pull stuff like that all the time. And look at the BPG stats of the past compared to now. You can even do comparable pace years if you'd like.

But yeah, everything else you said checks out :yaohappy:

[West-Side]

Pace, broseph. And how do you go on a long-winded diatribe about 3 pt shooting, and then point out FG%? Of course if you take far less 3s your FG% will be higher, hence why using eFG% makes more sense. :confusedshrug:

The Bulls 2nd 3-peat era through the 2001 rule changes:

'95-'96: 99.5 PPG/.499 eFG% *3 Pt line moved closer)
'96-'97: 96.9 PPG/.493 eFG%
'97-'98: 95.6 PPG/.478 eFG%
'98-'99: 91.6 PPG/.446 eFG%
'99-'00: 97.5 PPG/.478 eFG%
'00-'01: 94.8 PPG/.473 eFG%

Notice how the # across the board were on a downward trend, then like magic when the rule changes happened they started trending upwards.

Which is exactly what the NBA was attempting to do. That's what's lost on guys like you and Ballin. The NBA wasn't trying to make scoring harder. It was explicitly the exact opposite. The league wanted more scoring, faster pace, a more open game.

And that's exactly what they got.



And the less 3s you take, generally the higher FG% you'll have. This is basic shit. :confusedshrug:

eFG% takes everything into consideration but adds more weight the more 3s you take.




Yes, teams take more 3s now than ever. This isn't some new revelation. Which is why it makes sense to use a measure that takes that into account.




What the hell are you talking about?

How is going from 95 PPG to 101 PPG (same general pace) 'substantially down'? :wtf:

You're not making any damn sense here. You are fixated on 2001 when the rules changed. [To make it easier to score, according to you]...

Yet from 1980 to 1998 teams had on average scored 7.23 more PPG and a substantially higher FG%. How is it easier to score more today, if the average PPG is nearly 9 points higher a game in1980 and nearly 5 points higher a game in 1990.

I just love that you brought up the Bulls though, how convenient eh?
In 1998 (after the 3-peat) the Bulls lost Michael Jordan, so why the **** are you telling me the difference in their PPG and efficiency?

They lost the G.O.A.T so obviously those numbers are expected to go down. :hammerhead:

[West-Side]

You also need to ask yourself why team are taking more 3 point shots today??
Perhaps it's harder to score from up close?? :hammerhead:

Something that wasn't the case before 2001.
You know when perimeter players shot substantially higher in 2PT% than they do now.

Bottom line though is this; whether or not we take more 3 pointers today, we still aren't averaging 110 PPG or 107 PPG like before. In particular during Jordan's era. You say the rules made it easier? Sure, the numbers suggest that.

But the numbers don't suggest that today it is easier to score than it was in the 1980's or 1990's. The change in rules elevated the scoring from 2001 to now; but why did the scoring decline so much in the first place? There's a lot more factors to keep in mind than simply rule changes.

You also need to consider the evolution in athleticism, strategy and preparation. The speed of the game has increased dramatically.

[DonDadda59]

You're not making any damn sense here. You are fixated on 2001 when the rules changed. [To make it easier to score, according to you]...

Yet from 1980 to 1998 teams had on average scored 7.23 more PPG and a substantially higher FG%. How is it easier to score more today, if the average PPG is nearly 9 points less a game from 1980 and nearly 5 points less a game in 1990.

I keep trying to explain this to you in the simplest terms, but you're not grasping it.

In the mid 80s, the pace was in the 102 range and teams were taking 3 3FGA. In the mid 90s, the pace was around 95 and teams were taking 10 3s per game. The PPG decreased by 9.

From '01 to '15, the pace stayed in the 91-93 range and teams were taking 18-22 3 3FGA... but the PPG rose by 6.

From the merger through the '00s rule changes, there had been a downward trend in pace, scoring, etc but like magic after the rule changes all of those metrics started rising.

But defense is getting tougher to score on. :durantunimpressed:


I just love that you brought up the Bulls though, how convenient eh?
In 1998 (after the 3-peat) the Bulls lost Michael Jordan, so why the **** are you telling me the difference in their PPG and efficiency?


That was the entire league you fool, not just the Bulls. :facepalm

[West-Side]

You also suggest that the different in FG% is directly proportional to the amount of three point shots players attempt today, correct?

Than why is the 2PT% down as well? :oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

I don't know what these fools are talking about, seriously.
The game has evolved and it's far more difficult to score than it was 20 years ago. Strategies are adjusted over time and rules change.

Players are stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.
As much as I love Magic; I don't see him averaging close to the .541 2PT% he did for his career. He just wasn't dynamic enough or athletic enough to do that today.

http://media.giphy.com/media/bVPj51prJzVx6/giphy.gif

I just can't imagine Kobe, Wade, LeBron etc. being able to do that move today without getting their shit blocked.
This concept never ceases to amaze me. Every other sport in history has evolved and become more intricate over time, except our sacred cow the nba. Players aren't better athletes, strategies aren't better and skills absolutely aren't on part with 20 even 30 years ago.....:wtf:

[GIF REACTION]

You also suggest that the different in FG% is directly proportional to the amount of three point shots players attempt today, correct?

Than why is the 2PT% down as well? :oldlol:
MURDER.

GET HIM!

[DonDadda59]

You also need to ask yourself why team are taking more 3 point shots today??
Perhaps it's harder to score from up close?? :hammerhead:

Nope.

The no touching rules have been the biggest factor. In 1995, the league eliminated handchecking from the foul line down. Before then teams like the Bulls used to run full court presses where they would pressure the ball handler from the moment the ball was inbounded. But once that was eliminated, guards and shooter were given more space to operate. Look at the one year change in the 90s from before to after that happened. Look at the difference between 3 point attempts between 1990-2000 (before the rule changes).

Players have much more room to operate on the perimeter now than past eras. They can literally get off any shot they want at any time because they have unprecedented freedom offensively. Whereas in the past a guy like Curry would've been a specialist shooter like his father, now he's an MVP.


You also suggest that the different in FG% is directly proportional to the amount of three point shots players attempt today, correct?

Than why is the 2PT% down as well?

The lost art of the mid range jumper.

Guys like Harden, James, etc are 2 dimensional offensive players- they get to the bucket or they shoot 3s. If they're asked to play the mid range game they're lost. There are more 3 pt specialists than mid range guys like it was in the past.

But there are guys still around who possess that skill (D. Wade, Parker)- guys who shun the 3 but murder teams from the middle. No wonder they have 7 championships (2 finals MVPs) between them post 2001.

[West-Side]

Nope.

The no touching rules have been the biggest factor. In 1995, the league eliminated handchecking from the foul line down. Before then teams like the Bulls used to run full court presses where they would pressure the ball handler from the moment the ball was inbounded. But once that was eliminated, guards and shooter were given more space to operate. Look at the one year change in the 90s from before to after that happened. Look at the difference between 3 point attempts between 1990-2000 (before the rule changes).

Players have much more room to operate on the perimeter now than past eras. They can literally get off any shot they want at any time because they have unprecedented freedom offensively. Whereas in the past a guy like Curry would've been a specialist shooter like his father, now he's an MVP.



The lost art of the mid range jumper.

Guys like Harden, James, etc are 2 dimensional offensive players- they get to the bucket or they shoot 3s. If they're asked to play the mid range game they're lost. There are more 3 pt specialists than mid range guys like it was in the past.

But there are guys still around who possess that skill (D. Wade, Parker)- guys who shun the 3 but murder teams from the middle. No wonder they have 7 championships (2 finals MVPs) between them post 2001.

Than why are the 2PT% down compared to the 80's and 90's.
You really aren't making sense bro.

I'm not talking about the FG% here; I'm talking about 2PT%. So this has nothing to do with 3PT% or FG%; if players have more freedom from the perimeter shouldn't they score on a higher efficiency from the 2PT%.

From 1985 - 1998; league average for perimeter players was .482.
From 1999 - 2015; league average for perimeter players was .455.

As I've said, it players now have more freedom from the perimeter than how come guys like Magic Johnson had a higher 2PT% than LeBron James; how on earth did Chris Mullin shoot .533 from 2PT% while Dirk couldn't eclipse the .500 mark from 2PT.

Uhm...

[West-Side]

The lost art of the mid range jumper.

Guys like Harden, James, etc are 2 dimensional offensive players- they get to the bucket or they shoot 3s. If they're asked to play the mid range game they're lost. There are more 3 pt specialists than mid range guys like it was in the past.

But there are guys still around who possess that skill (D. Wade, Parker)- guys who shun the 3 but murder teams from the middle. No wonder they have 7 championships (2 finals MVPs) between them post 2001.

I knew it would come down to this; you're just being subjective now.
You're essentially just praising the "old school" players and disrespecting the evolution of basketball.

You know why the mid range jumper lost its art?
Because there's greater athleticism, strength, quickness, finesse from players today. That's something you need to realize. The defenses are much quicker to collapse on you. You say the art is lost, yet you're probably one of the first people to blame Kobe for copying Jordan.

It's a lot harder to be fundamentally sound when you have athletic freaks like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Anthony Davis running down your fast break and swatting the ball away etc etc etc.

The game is simply faster; which essentially makes it harder for players to create space for their shots. Which is why there are more and more 3 point attempts; because the defensive pressure isn't as tight when you're standing beyond the arc.

When's the last time LeBron had a hand in his face attempting a 3 point shot?

[DonDadda59]

Than why are the 2PT% down compared to the 80's and 90's.
You really aren't making sense bro.

I'm not talking about the FG% here; I'm talking about 2PT%. So this has nothing to do with 3PT% or FG%; if players have more freedom from the perimeter shouldn't they score on a higher efficiency from the 2PT%.

From 1985 - 1998; league average for perimeter players was .482.
From 1999 - 2015; league average for perimeter players was .455.

As I've said, it players now have more freedom from the perimeter than how come guys like Magic Johnson had a higher 2PT% than LeBron James; how on earth did Chris Mullin shoot .533 from 2PT% while Dirk couldn't eclipse the .500 mark from 2PT.

Uhm...

Explained above. Their mid range games are lacking. And I even provided you with specific player examples...

Michael Jordan (6 championships, 6 finals MVPs in the 90s): 49.7% FG, 51% 2PT, 1.7 3FGA

Dwyane Wade (3 championships, 1 finals MVP post 2001): 49% FG, 51% 2PT, 1.7 3FGA

Tony Parker (4 championships, 1 finals MVP post 2001): 49.4% FG, 51% 2PT, 1.4 3FGA

It's not rocket science. Less 3s, better mid range game = higher FG %(and higher 2PT). Is this shit really that hard for you people to grasp? :confusedshrug:


I knew it would come down to this; you're just being subjective now.
You're essentially just praising the "old school" players and disrespecting the evolution of basketball.

No need to catch feelings. Again, I just gave you specific examples of perimeter players from this era, champions/finals MVPs who like past players focused on their mid range game and kept their 3 attempts to a low minimum... and look at how the #s play out.

It's really a lot more simple than you're trying to make it out to be. More focus on mid range/post will yield you better 2 PT percentages than if you take 1/3+ of your shots from 3.

[West-Side]

Explained above. Their mid range games are lacking. And I even provided you with specific player examples...

Michael Jordan (6 championships, 6 finals MVPs in the 90s): 49.7% FG, 51% 2PT, 1.7 3FGA

Dwyane Wade (3 championships, 1 finals MVP post 2001): 49% FG, 51% 2PT, 1.7 3FGA

Tony Parker (4 championships, 1 finals MVP post 2001): 49.4% FG, 1.4 3FGA

It's not rocket science. Less 3s, better mid range game = higher FG %(and higher 2PT). Is this shit really that hard for you people to grasp? :confusedshrug:

You really are a piece of work you know that. :roll:
Here, give me two minutes.

I'm about to ether you.

[ClipperRevival]

I knew it would come down to this; you're just being subjective now.
You're essentially just praising the "old school" players and disrespecting the evolution of basketball.

You know why the mid range jumper lost its art?
Because there's greater athleticism, strength, quickness, finesse from players today. That's something you need to realize. The defenses are much quicker to collapse on you. You say the art is lost, yet you're probably one of the first people to blame Kobe for copying Jordan.

It's a lot harder to be fundamentally sound when you have athletic freaks like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Anthony Davis running down your fast break and swatting the ball away etc etc etc.

The game is simply faster; which essentially makes it harder for players to create space for their shots. Which is why there are more and more 3 point attempts; because the defensive pressure isn't as tight when you're standing beyond the arc.

When's the last time LeBron had a hand in his face attempting a 3 point shot?

Spoken like a young kid who started watching basketball a few years ago. :applause:

[West-Side]

To elaborate on what I mean, I've created a group of 15 perimeter players from 1990 and 2005 just to give you a small sample of my work. (below are each player's career 2PT%)

1990

Clyde Drexler - .498
John Stockton - .541
Magic Johnson - .541
Kevin Johnson - .504
Dominique Wilkins - .478
Tim Hardaway (89'-96' he shot .488; 97'-02' he shot .447) LOL
Mitch Richmond - .474
Reggie Miller - .516
Chris Mullin - .533
James Worthy - .532
Larry Nance - .548
Joe Dumars - .480
Derek Harper - .494
Glen Rice - (.480 up until 97'; .455 afterwards)
Terry Porter - .493

Average 2PT% - .507


2005

Tracy McGrady - .461
Ray Allan - .485
Allen Iverson - .448
LeBron James - .535
Dwayne Wade - .511
Dirk Nowitzki - .498
Steve Nash - .518
Vince Carter - .462
Michael Redd - .475
Steve Francis - .451
Gilbert Arenas - .458
Paul Pierce - .478
Tony Parker - .513
Carmelo Anthony - .476
Joe Johnson - .472

Average 2PT% - .483

Look at how five of the greatest shooters ever stack up.

Mullin - .533
Stockton - .541
Nash - .518
Nowtizki - .498
Ray Allen - .485

For god sakes, Mullin's career 2PT% is almost as good as LeBron James who gets a lot of his point due to his physical prowess (dunks and layups).

Look at the difference between volume scorers:

Drexler - .498
Worthy - .532
Wilkins - .478
King - .521

Anthony - .476
Wade -.511
McGrady -.461
Carter -.462
Pierce -.478

Look at the difference between smaller guards

Kevin Johnson (6'1) - .504
Derek Harper (6'4) - .494
Terry Porter (6'3) - .493

Allen Iverson -.448
Gilbert Arenas -.451
Steve Francis -.451

[DonDadda59]

I'm about to ether you.

Far better men than yourself have tried and failed. But god speed to ya. I'm gonna go to the store and get something to eat. :cheers:

[ClipperRevival]

As for this topic, I'm not going to pick a side. I just know that basketball is basketball and that the league will adjust according to the rules. The zone rules might've impacted the league initially for a few years (based on league averages) but they adjusted. If you want to know why zone isn't that big of a factor, just see the amount of times teams run zone today. They almost never do. Because players are just too good to leave alone. You need to stick with your man or pay. Zone is effective at the lower levels because guys just aren't as skilled and can't make you pay, but not the NBA. That's why I hate watching college bball because they aren't good enough to make the D pay for playing zone because the guards lack the iso ability to break down defenders and the spot up shooters aren't deadly from deep. It's a bad game to watch.

[DonDadda59]

To elaborate on what I mean, I've created a group of 15 perimeter players from 1990 and 2005 just to give you a small sample of my work. (below are each player's career 2PT%)

1990

Clyde Drexler - .498
John Stockton - .541
Magic Johnson - .541
Kevin Johnson - .504
Dominique Wilkins - .478
Tim Hardaway (89'-96' he shot .488; 97'-02' he shot .447) LOL
Mitch Richmond - .474
Reggie Miller - .516
Chris Mullin - .533
James Worthy - .532
Larry Nance - .548
Joe Dumars - .480
Derek Harper - .494
Glen Rice - (.480 up until 97'; .455 afterwards)
Terry Porter - .493

Average 2PT% - .507


2005

Tracy McGrady - .461
Ray Allan - .485
Allen Iverson - .448
LeBron James - .535
Dwayne Wade - .511
Dirk Nowitzki - .498
Steve Nash - .518
Vince Carter - .462
Michael Redd - .475
Steve Francis - .451
Gilbert Arenas - .458
Paul Pierce - .478
Tony Parker - .513
Carmelo Anthony - .476
Joe Johnson - .472

Average 2PT% - .483

Look at how five of the greatest shooters ever stack up.

Mullin - .533
Stockton - .541
Nash - .518
Nowtizki - .498
Ray Allen - .485

For god sakes, Mullin's career 2PT% is almost as good as LeBron James who gets a lot of his point due to his physical prowess (dunks and layups).

Look at the difference between volume scorers:

Drexler - .498
Worthy - .532
Wilkins - .478
King - .521

Anthony - .476
Wade -.511
McGrady -.461
Carter -.462
Pierce -.478

Look at the difference between smaller guards

Kevin Johnson (6'1) - .504
Derek Harper (6'4) - .494
Terry Porter (6'3) - .493

Allen Iverson -.448
Gilbert Arenas -.451
Steve Francis -.451

Now go ahead and post how many 3s/game every one of those players attempted in their careers and voila...

Occam's Razor, bruh.

[West-Side]

The key word is "2PT%".
If it was easier to score in today's era; than their 2PT% should reflect that reality. 2PT% also include layups and dunks.

I really don't care about your opinion as to why it's lower; its your subjective opinion just like I have my opinion on the matter.

Bottom line; I've shown you statistical evidence that suggests players today have a tougher time scoring than they did in the 80's and 90's both from a point per game perspective and efficiency.

[GIF REACTION]

It's much more than just zones

"Acts of Illegal Defense"

I've already gone over it. The removal of Illegal Defense had a major impact.

[West-Side]

Now go ahead and post how many 3s/game every one of those players attempted in their careers and voila...

Occam's Razor, bruh.

Ah so your reasoning is this, let me get this straight.

A player that takes more 3's will have a lower 2PT% because he doesn't refine his mid-range game, am I right?

It absolutely has nothing to do with facing better defenses, no?
It makes no sense to you that perhaps players take more 3's because they face more pressure from mid range and therefore it explains their lower 2PT%, no?

Ah well, we'll agree to disagree I guess.

[GIF REACTION]

Efficiency goes down with volume Don

[ClipperRevival]

The key word is "2PT%".
If it was easier to score in today's era; than their 2PT% should reflect that reality. 2PT% also include layups and dunks.

I really don't care about your opinion as to why it's lower; its your subjective opinion just like I have my opinion on the matter.

Bottom line; I've shown you statistical evidence that suggests players today have a tougher time scoring than they did in the 80's and 90's both from a point per game perspective and efficiency.

Too easy. The decline in the play of the big men lowered those numbers. The decline of the emphasis on the mid-range lowered those numbers. What we have now is a league that's all about shooting the 3 or taking it to the rack. No post game, no midrange. It's a decline in the basics of the game, which was much stronger in the 80's, because they had to be. There was very little 3 point attempts so the spacing wasn't as good. So the midrange was a huge. Most of the great scorers of the 80's had deadly midranges.

Happy?

[GIF REACTION]

I think he was referring to perimeter players, bro

Keep up

[ClipperRevival]

I think he was referring to perimeter players, bro

Keep up

He's using the league wide numbers so I have to include bigs. As for perimeter players, like I said above, the midrange was a huge part of the game back in the 80's. Completely different from today's game. Most great scorers at that time had deadly midranges. So obviously, they are going to be more efficient at it. You get good at what you stress. Today, the league stresses the 3 so efficiency goes up. Guys get better and better at it.

[GIF REACTION]

I suggest you go read the Illegal Defense Guidelines.

[GIF REACTION]

Don't worry. I have it here for you;

=================================
-----Illegal Defense Official NBA Guidelines-----
A. Technical Foul

Section I-Illegal Defenses

a. Illegal defenses which violate the rules and accepted guidelines set forth are not permitted in the NBA.

b. When the offensive team is in its backcourt with the ball, no illegal defense violation may occur.

(1) Penalties for Illegal Defenses.

On the first violation, the 24-second clock is reset to 24. On the second and succeeding violations, the clock is reset to 24 and one free throw (technical) is attempted. When a violation occurs during the last 24 seconds of any period (including overtime), regardless of the number of prior offenses, one free throw is awarded for the violation. (On all violations, the ball is awarded to the offended team out-of-bounds at the free throw line extended on either side of the court.)

EXCEPTION: If a field goal attempt is simultaneous with a whistle for an illegal violation, and that attempt is successful, the basket shall count and the violation is nullified.

(2) Guidelines for Defensive Coverage

a. Weakside defenders may be in a defensive position within the "outside lane" with no time limit, and within the "Inside lane" for 2.9 seconds. The defensive player must re-establish a position with both feet out of the "Insidelane" to be considered as having legally cleared the restricted area.

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.

c. An offensive player without the ball may not be double-teamed from the weakside. Only the player with the ball may be double-teamed by a weakside defensive player. Weakside and strongside restrictions shall extend from the baseline to the midcourt line.

d. When an offensive player, with or without the ball, takes a position above the foul line, the defensive player may be no farther (toward the baseline) than the "middle defensive area." Defensive player(s) may enter and re-enter the "lower defensive area" as many times as desired, so long as he does not exceed 2.9 seconds.

e. When a weakside offensive player is above the free throw line extended, his defensive man may be no lower than the "middle defensive area" extended for more than 2.9 seconds. When a weakside offensive player is below the free throw line extended, his defensive man must vacate the "inside lane" unless his man is positioned adjacent (posted up) to the threesecond lane extended. When a weakside offensive player is above the tip of the circle, his defensive man must be no lower than the "upper defensive area" for more than 2.9 seconds. When a strongside offensive player is above the tip of the circle extended, his defensive man may be no lower than the free-throw line extended (upper defensive area) for more than 2.9 seconds. When a strongside offensive player is above the free throw line extended "upper defensive area, his defensive man may be no lower than the "middle defensive area" for more than 2.9 seconds. When an offensive player on the strongside is below the free throw line extended "middle defensive area," his defender must take a position below the free throw line extended immediately or double-team the ball as soon as the ball crosses midcourt. There is no 2.9 time limit. If the offensive player relocates to a position above the free throw line extended, his defender may take a similar position no farther than one defensive area away within 2.9 seconds. In all of the situations above, a defensive player may always aggressively double-team the ball regardless of his previous position on the floor.

f. When an offensive player takes a position above the tip of the circle, with or without the ball, the defensive player may be no farther (toward the baseline) from him than the "upper defensive area."

g. A defensive player must follow his weakside offensive man, switch to another man at an area of intersection, or double-team the ball. There is no 2.9-second time limit on this play. A defensive player must execute one of these three options or he is guilty of an illegal defense immediately.

h. A defensive player must follow his strongside offensive man, switch to another man at an area of intersection, or double-team the ball. There is a 2.9-second time limit on this play which commences when the defensive player reaches the weakside and "opens up."

i. A double team is when two or more defenders aggressively pursue a player with the ball to a position close enough for a held ball to occur. Failure to comply with paragraphs (a) through (i) above will result in an Illegal Defense violation.

[GIF REACTION]

Damn. It sure seems like the defenses in the 80's and 90's might just have their hands tied behind their backs.

JUST A LITTLE BIT HEY?

[ClipperRevival]

Damn. It sure seems like the defenses in the 80's and 90's might just have their hands tied behind their backs.

JUST A LITTLE BIT HEY?

LOL. How can you comment about the 80's and 90's if you never saw them play?

[DonDadda59]

Ah so your reasoning is this, let me get this straight

It has nothing to do with my reasoning or your hurt feelings.

You even unknowingly proved it yourself and backed up my claim. In the list you put out, of the 'new school' players you listed Parker and Wade as being far above the league average on 2PT% and as I pointed out... they focused on their mid range games, driving, and even post ups as opposed to 3 point chucking like the rest of their contemporaries. They averaged the same 3 attempts per game as Jordan did.

Result?

Well I don't have to spell it out for you. You did the homework :lol

[ClipperRevival]

Don't worry. I have it here for you;

=================================
-----Illegal Defense Official NBA Guidelines-----
A. Technical Foul

Section I-Illegal Defenses

a. Illegal defenses which violate the rules and accepted guidelines set forth are not permitted in the NBA.

b. When the offensive team is in its backcourt with the ball, no illegal defense violation may occur.

(1) Penalties for Illegal Defenses.

On the first violation, the 24-second clock is reset to 24. On the second and succeeding violations, the clock is reset to 24 and one free throw (technical) is attempted. When a violation occurs during the last 24 seconds of any period (including overtime), regardless of the number of prior offenses, one free throw is awarded for the violation. (On all violations, the ball is awarded to the offended team out-of-bounds at the free throw line extended on either side of the court.)

EXCEPTION: If a field goal attempt is simultaneous with a whistle for an illegal violation, and that attempt is successful, the basket shall count and the violation is nullified.

(2) Guidelines for Defensive Coverage

a. Weakside defenders may be in a defensive position within the "outside lane" with no time limit, and within the "Inside lane" for 2.9 seconds. The defensive player must re-establish a position with both feet out of the "Insidelane" to be considered as having legally cleared the restricted area.

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.

c. An offensive player without the ball may not be double-teamed from the weakside. Only the player with the ball may be double-teamed by a weakside defensive player. Weakside and strongside restrictions shall extend from the baseline to the midcourt line.

d. When an offensive player, with or without the ball, takes a position above the foul line, the defensive player may be no farther (toward the baseline) than the "middle defensive area." Defensive player(s) may enter and re-enter the "lower defensive area" as many times as desired, so long as he does not exceed 2.9 seconds.

e. When a weakside offensive player is above the free throw line extended, his defensive man may be no lower than the "middle defensive area" extended for more than 2.9 seconds. When a weakside offensive player is below the free throw line extended, his defensive man must vacate the "inside lane" unless his man is positioned adjacent (posted up) to the threesecond lane extended. When a weakside offensive player is above the tip of the circle, his defensive man must be no lower than the "upper defensive area" for more than 2.9 seconds. When a strongside offensive player is above the tip of the circle extended, his defensive man may be no lower than the free-throw line extended (upper defensive area) for more than 2.9 seconds. When a strongside offensive player is above the free throw line extended "upper defensive area, his defensive man may be no lower than the "middle defensive area" for more than 2.9 seconds. When an offensive player on the strongside is below the free throw line extended "middle defensive area," his defender must take a position below the free throw line extended immediately or double-team the ball as soon as the ball crosses midcourt. There is no 2.9 time limit. If the offensive player relocates to a position above the free throw line extended, his defender may take a similar position no farther than one defensive area away within 2.9 seconds. In all of the situations above, a defensive player may always aggressively double-team the ball regardless of his previous position on the floor.

f. When an offensive player takes a position above the tip of the circle, with or without the ball, the defensive player may be no farther (toward the baseline) from him than the "upper defensive area."

g. A defensive player must follow his weakside offensive man, switch to another man at an area of intersection, or double-team the ball. There is no 2.9-second time limit on this play. A defensive player must execute one of these three options or he is guilty of an illegal defense immediately.

h. A defensive player must follow his strongside offensive man, switch to another man at an area of intersection, or double-team the ball. There is a 2.9-second time limit on this play which commences when the defensive player reaches the weakside and "opens up."

i. A double team is when two or more defenders aggressively pursue a player with the ball to a position close enough for a held ball to occur. Failure to comply with paragraphs (a) through (i) above will result in an Illegal Defense violation.

LOL. Pick up a basketball and play the game man. I sometimes wonder about guys who get all knee deep in rules, trying to make the game more complicated than it is. Basketball is basketball, it's a simple game.

[GIF REACTION]

That's two terrible rebuttals in a row.

"Rules don't matter because uhhhhh duhhh basketball is basketball durrrr"

[ClipperRevival]

That's two terrible rebuttals in a row.

"Rules don't matter because uhhhhh duhhh basketball is basketball durrrr"

You're the one making a definitive claim that the 2001-2004 era was the toughest D era ever. I am saying it's not that clear cut. That no matter what the rules, basketball is still basketball. Five guys get on that court and compete. You adjust to the rule changes like everyone else. So if that's what you feel, fine, but I'm not into making DEFINITIVE claims about a specific era. Yes, the game changes over a long period of time and evolves but in the span of one year to the next? Not much change.

[West-Side]

It has nothing to do with my reasoning or your hurt feelings.

You even unknowingly proved it yourself and backed up my claim. In the list you put out, of the 'new school' players you listed Parker and Wade as being far above the league average on 2PT% and as I pointed out... they focused on their mid range games, driving, and even post ups as opposed to 3 point chucking like the rest of their contemporaries. They averaged the same 3 attempts per game as Jordan did.

Result?

Well I don't have to spell it out for you. You did the homework :lol

You have LeBron, Nash, Parker & Wade (4 examples) of players from the past 15 years that had good 2PT%. All 4 are hall of famers, and that's you deliberation???

Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, John Stockton were 3 point shooters, they have significantly higher 2PT% than guys like Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce.

Are you telling me those 3 players didn't focus on their mid-range game?

:hammerhead:

[ClipperRevival]

You have LeBron, Nash, Parker & Wade (4 examples) of players from the past 15 years that had good 2PT%. All 4 are hall of famers, and that's you deliberation???

Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, John Stockton were 3 point shooters, they have significantly higher 2PT% than guys like Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce.

Are you telling me those 3 players didn't focus on their mid-range game?

:hammerhead:

:biggums:

[West-Side]

You guys also act like players today don't practice their mid-range game. I watch the game today and I watched the game in the late 80's and early 90's. The defensive pressure players face today is night and day.

Especially when we consider mid-range game (10-22 feet away from the basket). It was very rare for players to get double teamed (primarily because there was an ample amount of good big man) which is why the 2PT% was substantially higher than it is today.

The player's didn't lose focus, they just realized it's much more difficult to attempt a mid-range shot today than it was 20 years ago.

In the 80's & 90's, good big man demanded double teams which left players open to hit open jumpers. Today? It's far more difficult for perimeter players to score within the arc because there aren't nearly as many good big man and the defenses are simply far quicker to collapse on you and far more agile and athletic.

It's common sense, just put in a tape from the 80's/90's and today's game, how do you guys not notice a difference?

[DonDadda59]

Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, John Stockton were 3 point shooters

2.2, 4.7, 1.5 3 point attempts per game respectively.

Stockton, with the lowest amount of 3s, has the highest 2% of the bunch.


they have significantly higher 2PT% than guys like Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce.

5.7, 3.3, 4.4 3 point attempts per game respectively :confusedshrug:

Dirk, with the lowest amount of 3s attempted, has the highest 2% of the bunch.


Are you telling me those 3 players didn't focus on their mid-range game?


I'm telling you they focused on that aspect of their game far less than players in past generations. And focused far more on long range shooting.

But of course I'm sure you're waiting to tell me players today are seeing super advanced impenetrable defenses that don't allow them to shoot well from inside the 3... while the odd guys like Wade and Parker are trapped in a time warp that allows them to see weak old school defenses on the court. :roll:

[Showtime80']

John Stockton is again a perfect example of an 80's player maximizing his superior skill over the "supremely athletic" but dumb as a rock modern players! Go watch old Stock and Jeff Hornaceck absolutely DISMANTLE the younger "21st century athletic" backcourt of Eddie Jones, Kobe Bryant and Nick Van Exel in the 97 and 98 playoffs. Pure show of 80's superior skill over modern athleticism!

From 2000 to 2003, from 37 to 40 years of age he STILL averaged 50%+ FG while averaging 12 ppg and dishing out 8 assists while playing 6 less minutes per game than in his prime years all while playing in the much stronger West!!!!! LOL!!! I can just imaging what his prime version along with all the 80's superstars would've done to today's nuckle head league!!! Pure domination!

The 80's generation was the greatest the NBA had or will ever have! That's why their numbers were what they were. The last generation to hone their skills and fundamentals in 3 to 4 years of college BEFORE entering the NBA and the product on the floor was NEVER BETTER!

Enjoy the present soft as tissue paper, non- fundamental, no post up or mid range game, lack luster fast breaks, 3 point happy, superstar colluding present day NBA!!!

Sorry you missed the 80's!

[riseagainst]

that's great and all. But the 2001-2004 era is still the greatest defensive era of all time.

[Showtime80']

And the 80's were the GREATEST era!

[GIF REACTION]

Wrap this one up,

Don got destroyed again

[97 bulls]

Wrap this one up,

Don got destroyed again
The NBA doesnt utilize a real zone. Its more of a perimeter zone. And as been said, teams dont really utilize it.

And even if the NBA did utilize a legitimate zone defense, theres always a tradeoff. Zone defenses lead to inability to box out effectively and lead to easy transition baskets due to inability to matchup in transition.

[DonDadda59]

Wrap this one up,

Don got destroyed again

:oldlol:

You must not like posting. You want me to shut your shit down again? :crazysam:


The NBA doesnt utilize a real zone. Its more of a perimeter zone. And as been said, teams dont really utilize it.

The idiots who post here don't know shit about basketball. They couldn't tell you the difference between a 2-3 zone or man with help.

But I'm sure Ballin will tell you all about the zone sandwiches he cooked up. :yaohappy:

[97 bulls]

I think people are getting too wrapped up in biases. No era is better than another. The league focus has evolved over the years. That evolution is due to two teams. The Detroit Pistons of the late 80s and the Bulls. The Pistons because they focused more on defense than offense and the Bulls because of Jordan. But also the Bulls because they dominated a league full of great big men without one.

Now allow me to explain. The NBA Finals in 94 boasted the ultimate battle of the big men. Olajuwan vs Ewing. And the ratings sucked. It didnt get much better in 95 when Olajuwan went up against a young Shaq.

The NBA peaked as far as fan interest from 96 to 98 with 98 getting the NBA its highest ratings ever thanx to Jordan. Once Jordan retired, the NBA spent the next few years looking for tbe next Jordan. Grant Hill, Harold Miner, Vince Carter, Jerry Stackhouse to name a few were touted as being the next Jordan and failed for different reasons.

So the NBA manufactured the next Jordan by changing the rules in an effort to help perimeter scoring. Thats why scoring for perimeter NBA players rose so much. So what did the next batch of NBA players do? Cater their game based on what the league was becoming. Even bigs started working on scoring from the perimeter. A perimeter oreineted league.

[triangleoffense]

Nah the refs were starting their *****-ification mode during this time. Best defensive ERA still 90-00

[GIF REACTION]

That's nice don but at the end of the day the toughest defense to score against was the 2001-2004 period. You CANNOT argue this.

[DonDadda59]

That's nice don but at the end of the day the toughest defense to score against was the 2001-2004 period. You CANNOT argue this.

The f*ck I can't.

Random stretch I plucked out of the air-

'59-'62: 41% FG, .419% eFG%

And '01-'04 was by the #s virtually the same as '96-'99.

'96-'99: 94.7 PPG, 44.7% FG, .479 eFG%

'01-'04: 94.7 PPG, 44.2% FG, .474 eFG%

:confusedshrug:

[SHAQisGOAT]

You want to know why players from the 80's scored more efficiently? Solid fundamentals, IQ and keeping the game basic! And also the fact that the 80's players didn't grow up with the "I wanna be like Mike" syndrome which turned even 7' footers into perimeter oriented pu!!ies in the generations after. Big players back then played BIG and developed their post and mid range game instead of camping out at the 3 point line waiting for a pass ala Kevin "Steve Kerr" Love last year in Cleveland

Rasheed Wallace is to me the perfect example of why the modern player is so inefficient. A guy who could score down low AT WILL and at times no NO ONE could stop down low. What happened? Like most modern players he decided to complicate the game for himself and his teams by forcing long jumpers and 3 pointers more and more often! A guy that could've rivaled Tim Duncan if he just kept the game SIMPLE!

You think James Worthy, Adrian Dantley, Alex English or Bernard King would've limited their games by trying to be 3 point shooters?!? Hell no! They were gonna stick to their bread and butter and tear the defense a new one from inside 18 feet!

80's players maximized their skills and made life hell for opposing defenses, modern players make the game hard for themselves!

And that passing game...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-21-2015/pJnaaz.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2015/T6regi.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-21-2015/4ofs4p.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2015/p7vFbn.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2015/tLYVBt.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2015/1mq0V3.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-21-2015/5FGhYx.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-21-2015/lxL2vB.gif


http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/banderas.png

[GIF REACTION]

The f*ck I can't.

Random stretch I plucked out of the air-

'59-'62: 41% FG, .419% eFG%

And '01-'04 was by the #s virtually the same as '96-'99.

'96-'99: 94.7 PPG, 44.7% FG, .479 eFG%

'01-'04: 94.7 PPG, 44.2% FG, .474 eFG%

:confusedshrug:
I see the slight difference

And then we relate it to individual players scoring. Mike J would have not scored as easily in the 2001-2004 period. Just hope that his role players make open shots!!!

[DonDadda59]

I see the slight difference

And then we relate it to individual players scoring. Mike J would have not scored as easily in the 2001-2004 period. Just hope that his role players make open shots!!!

2001- Iverson 31.1 PPG, Jerry Stackhouse 29.8 PPG
2002- Iverson 31.4 PPG
2003- Tracy McGrady 32.1 PPG, Jelly Bean Bryant 30 PPG
2004- Tracy McGrady 28 PPG

But dat zone sandwich doe.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.mandatory.com/media/2013/02/michael-jordan-laughing.gif

[GIF REACTION]

Give me the percentages, donald.

[DonDadda59]

Give me the percentages, donald.

100% Deez Nuts

[DatAsh]

How are they scoring more on better percentages you moron??

The PPG, 2PT% & FG% were much higher in the 80's and 90's compared to 2001 to 2015.

You do realize that eFG% is man made formula that accounts for the number of three point shots you take? The more 3 point shots you take, the higher your eFG% will be (keeping the 3PT% constant). :roll:

Here's a clue "Don"

1980 - 227 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.486 eFG% - 109.3 PPG - .481 FG%
1985 - 257 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 110.2 PPG - .491 FG%]
1990 - 541 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.489 eFG% - 107 PPG - .476 FG%]
1995 - 1255 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.500 eFG% - 101 PPG - .466 FG%]
2000 - 1125 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.478 eFG% - 97.5 PPG - .449 FG%]
2005 - 1292 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.482 eFG% - 97.2 PPG - .447 FG%]
2010 - 1487 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.501 eFG% - 100.4 PPG - .461 FG%]
2015 - 1838 (average 3 point attempts per team) [.496 eFG% - 100.0 PPG - .449]


Your precious eFG% works as such: (FGM + .5 * 3PTM) / FGA
It gives an arbitrary extra half a point for any 3 point made.

So basically if you attempt more 3 point shots; you have a better chance of inflating your eFG%.

The PPG from 2001 - 2015 is substantially down so is the efficiency (both 2PT% and FG%).

Also there is like absolutely no difference in eFG% to begin with despite teams taking 1000+ more 3 point shots a season. :roll:

Anything else?
Look at the numbers I posted and try to see a clear correlation in eFG% change. FG% and the amount of 3 point shots attempted directly impacts eFG%.

That doesn't mean the scoring has increased since 2001 (compared to the 80's or 90's) nor the efficiency. In fact, the scoring has substantially decreased and so has the efficiency.

This forum, I tell ya! :hammerhead:

Why would you use metrics like ppg, and FG% when unarguably better metrics like pps, eFG%, and TS% exist? If your goal is to measure scoring efficiency, the only time you should ever look at metrics like ppg or FG% is when the other metrics aren't readily available.