"Back in the 90's, the game was more tough and physical" [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Showtime80'

12-06-2019, 05:30 PM

Really, the early 90's Orlando Magic one of the worst teams in the league had horrible defense, you don't say?!?

Listen to what Steve Nash and Vince Carter are saying, they have FORGOTTEN MORE BASKETBALL than you will ever know in your entire life and Nash is basically attributing his superstar status to the rule changes that happened in the mid 2005's and Vince KNOWS multiple so called modern "stars" could not handle the physicality of those days.

The truth is the NBA lost their collective minds AGAIN after the Spurs, Pistons and Pacers dominated the league from 2003 to 2005 making the manufactured "stars" of the era like Kobe, Carter, Iverson, LeBald, T-Mac and Wade to name a few look putrid in the process.

Here's another little longer video explaining all this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nBRV0TKsxo

Millennials just can't get over the fact that David Stern and Jerry Colangelo basically sanitized and DUMBED DOWN the game so your little sensitive behinds could digested it and to prop up the modern current crop of flawed players.

RRR3

12-06-2019, 05:32 PM

Did showtime80s just imply LeBron, Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Iverson and Vince Carter weren’t legitimate stars? That’s just batshit insane my dude.

MaxPlayer

12-06-2019, 05:33 PM

:facepalm stop it. Of course a 90s player would glorify their own era by saying how tough it was back then. Stop exaggerating it, defense was not tough or physical back then like these old heads keep saying it was.

It's like everything cultural: movies, music, fashion. Everyone is convinced that what was going on in their own youth was the pinnacle, and everything since is crap. When in reality, more often than not, things are getting better. It's pure nostalgia.

StrongLurk

12-06-2019, 05:33 PM

Whose alt is showtime80?

Can only be a few possible options.

RRR3

12-06-2019, 05:35 PM

Whose alt is showtime80?

Can only be a few possible options.
3ball?

Although his posting style reminds me of Bizil (who is not a troll). Don’t think Bizil would troll like that though.

Showtime80'

12-06-2019, 05:35 PM

LOL at thinking Steve Nash and Vince Carter are 90's players. Steve played 3 seasons in the 90's and Vince only played the 99 shortened season.

Here's Kobe also slamming the current AAU infested NBA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEyKG1jMEE8

Jesus Christ! Go try to find some clips of players that were playing in the 80's and early 90's talking about how "soft" it was. I'll save you the time, YOU WON'T FIND ANY!!!

RRR3

12-06-2019, 05:37 PM

SomeBlackDude

12-06-2019, 05:38 PM

you're welcome. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28y59DjqVvs)

/thread (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8qmcpjJyI)

Showtime80'

12-06-2019, 05:38 PM

The NBA is definitely one of the things that got WAY WORSE over time and like Kobe said, AAU RUINED IT!!!

RRR3

12-06-2019, 05:40 PM

The NBA is definitely one of the things that got WAY WORSE over time and like Kobe said, AAU RUINED IT!!!
Explanation points and capital letters don’t equal a good argument.

You just seem like you’re screaming and pounding the keyboard.

LAmbruh

12-06-2019, 05:41 PM

charmin soft era:oldlol:

SomeBlackDude

12-06-2019, 05:48 PM

charmin soft era:oldlol:

not enough pasty, chubby europeans having a 3 pt shooting contest and scoring 150 pts in regulation.

:yaohappy:

sammichoffate

12-06-2019, 05:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bM-Y4UoiAY

One game suspension.

:yaohappy:

scuzzy

12-06-2019, 06:00 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/SNDCxT8X/hgjktgityioyil.png

SomeBlackDude

12-06-2019, 06:02 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bM-Y4UoiAY

One game suspension.

:yaohappy:

the mailman's elbow = most underrated weapon in nba history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrzQTm9C788

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgM0Xm4E9UI

https://youtu.be/f0nIHCR--Bg?t=23

woulda been an mma god.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jv6vD1iKOU4/hqdefault.jpg

:eek:

Bronbron23

12-06-2019, 06:17 PM

you're welcome. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28y59DjqVvs)

/thread (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8qmcpjJyI)
This. I refer to these early 90's playoff series all the time. I dare anyone to find me a series this physical in this era.

egokiller

12-06-2019, 07:17 PM

:facepalm stop it. Of course a 90s player would glorify their own era by saying how tough it was back then. Stop exaggerating it, defense was not tough or physical back then like these old heads keep saying it was.

This makes no sense. Why would someone older glorify the past if the present was just as good? There would be no reason to. Obviously everyone would prefer if the current game was just as physical as the past, but it wasn't so we are left with two groups:

1. People who saw it can reflect on it and appreciate it.
2. People who didn't see it can complain, feel insecure, and wonder what it might have been like to see it.

No one in their right fvcking mind would prefer viewing only this era rather than viewing this era and the 90s. The insecurity needs to stop. Be thankful that there are those around you that can describe to you what you missed. Anything else is biting the hand that feeds.

Another one.
Too EZ

Da_Realist

12-06-2019, 07:45 PM

[QUOTE=Showtime80']LOL at these isolated clips!!! Go look at ANY clips from the perimeter manufactured stars after the 2005 defensive highjack and you see a red carpet stroll down the lane when the NBA basically neutered defenses.

Here's a clip of Steve Nash, a guy who played from 1997 to 2014 and won two MVP's in 2006 and 07 thanks to the rule changes the NBA put in, breaking it down to a basic level and confirming how people like David Stern, Rob Thorn and Jerry Colangelo to name a few altered all the defensive rules starting from the mid 90's (after the panic of the MJ

egokiller

12-06-2019, 07:45 PM

Another one

Manny98

12-06-2019, 07:45 PM

Da_Realist

12-06-2019, 07:46 PM

This makes no sense. Why would someone older glorify the past if the present was just as good? There would be no reason to. Obviously everyone would prefer if the current game was just as physical as the past, but it wasn't so we are left with two groups:

1. People who saw it can reflect on it and appreciate it.
2. People who didn't see it can complain, feel insecure, and wonder what it might have been like to see it.

ISH especially

MaxPlayer

12-06-2019, 07:47 PM

This makes no sense. Why would someone older glorify the past if the present was just as good? There would be no reason to.

Have you ever heard anyone say "when I was a teenager, the music sucked"?

Me neither.

tontoz

12-06-2019, 07:48 PM

Dennis Rodman hacking Pippen and tossing him out of bounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhQyaKWsQy8

Malone destroys Isiah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0RGcMhGMk4

Knicks defending Jordan multiple plays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ

Replay32

12-06-2019, 07:49 PM

I take it the youngins have nothing to say about this. Not surprised no one has addressed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28y59DjqVvs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8qmcpjJyI

Replay32

12-06-2019, 07:59 PM

I don't think these kids realize that with the rule changes. They put a lot of emphasis on freedom of movement. Especially off the ball. The ticky tack calls today really get on my nerves. Back in the 90's there was a lot more chunking as you tried to come through the paint. The refs also let players grab and hold more so it was a lot more difficult to get to your spots. There was hand checking. These things was way more physically taxing than what we see today.

Nowadays there's a lot more touch fouls. Every bang bang play is called (either a charge or block). In the 90's those type of plays would be no calls way more often. Not to mention all the dirty flagrant stuff that went on were players weren't even ejected.

Yes back in the 90's the game(especially the playoffs) was more physical than today.

scuzzy

12-06-2019, 08:01 PM

youz kidz

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BaggyPessimisticAdeliepenguin-small.gif

MaxPlayer

12-06-2019, 08:06 PM

https://66.media.tumblr.com/b2a7404948361775f922e6a0c0081659/tumblr_nl184sXWle1qzx3jto9_500.gifv

scuzzy

12-06-2019, 08:09 PM

24 inches of snow, 12 miles uphill both ways

youz kidz

https://i.postimg.cc/0ynYVhSn/jk-yhl.png

egokiller

12-06-2019, 08:14 PM

I take it the youngins have nothing to say about this. Not surprised no one has addressed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28y59DjqVvs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8qmcpjJyI

Don't do em like that.:roll:

Back when the rules allowed men to play a mans game instead of today where the rules make everyone play this soft as Charmin brand of basketball.:lol

Bronbron23

12-06-2019, 08:32 PM

24 inches of snow, 12 miles uphill both ways

youz kidz

https://i.postimg.cc/0ynYVhSn/jk-yhl.png
Ill give you credit thats actually a good one. My pops used to come at me with that shit all the time when i was acting like a punk. Used to get on my damn nerves.

Bronbron23

12-06-2019, 09:03 PM

Its true that every generation gets a little softer. Its just way society is heading with all the anti bullying and non violence stuff. Dont get me wrong its s good thing but anyone who argues this is just in denial.

scuzzy

12-06-2019, 09:03 PM

Ill give you credit thats actually a good one. My pops used to come at me with that shit all the time when i was acting like a punk. Used to get on my damn nerves.
$1.00 would get us a damn milkshake, 2 cheesburgers and a large fry :rant

youz kidz

https://i.postimg.cc/PqrRyB6z/sdgedyhert.png

Micku

12-06-2019, 09:03 PM

Don't we have players who played in both eras, coaches, and ppl who changed rules already stated that the rules were tougher for perimeter players back then?

They changed the rules to make it more easier. There are more rules than just hand checking. The NBA wanted to faster pace, less physical d, and easier way for teams to score. Less time to bring the ball up to half court, 3 defensive seconds, more emphasis on hand checking, including forearms.

Other stuff came in too. Difference in coaching philosophy, more emphasis on spacing, and the value of the 3 point shot.

The NBA don't want another late 90s-early 00s play style. They believed that increase in scoring will equal higher ratings and money. So, that's where we are now.

There were articles back then that was complaining about the amount of iso plays and low scoring games back in the 00s. But we still have a bunch of also plays now.

But anyway, you can't really take a bunch of iso plays and be like "That's how they played all the time". You'll miss out on the double team, the triple team, sometimes you'll miss out when they hold a guy off the ball, or when they actually put in pressure. Sometimes the ball denial is great and the pressure is great and you would have to pass.

Even in today's game, especially in the playoffs, players could get away with some things. The refs would allow some more physical ball. It isn't as consistent as today. And the improve spacing is much more of a huge deal now than back then.

Bankaii

12-06-2019, 09:11 PM

Scuzzy killing it ITT:oldlol:

Duncan21formvp

12-06-2019, 10:38 PM

Defense was too fierce back then.

FKAri

12-06-2019, 10:45 PM

1. People who saw it can reflect on it and appreciate it.
2. People who didn't see it can complain, feel insecure, and wonder what it might have been like to see it.
Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:

LOL at these isolated clips!!! Go look at ANY clips from the perimeter manufactured stars after the 2005 defensive highjack and you see a red carpet stroll down the lane when the NBA basically neutered defenses.

Here's a clip of Steve Nash, a guy who played from 1997 to 2014 and won two MVP's in 2006 and 07 thanks to the rule changes the NBA put in, breaking it down to a basic level and confirming how people like David Stern, Rob Thorn and Jerry Colangelo to name a few altered all the defensive rules starting from the mid 90's (after the panic of the MJ’s first retirement and the abysmal 1994 season) to the late 2000's to prop up the mid 90's and onward crop of flawed fundamentals, IQ deficient and AAU poisoned players who didn’t have the classic fundamental knowledge on how to properly attach defenses and started concentrating on their athleticism above everything else. Fast forward to minute 14:38:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHN3d9bpJ-g&t=915s

Here's the excerpt:

Steve Nash says about Grant Hill and the old school game "It was a different game then. They could put two hands on you, they could forearm you, they could knock you down, it was SUPER PHYSICAL and for him to be able to do it in an era where there were less possessions and it was LIKE WRESTLING out there!!!

Bill Simmons: "And then David Stern CHANGED THE RULES so you could succeed, you were the IMPETUS!!!"

Steve Nash: "Laughs! Changed my career. It think David Stern saw me and said this poor kid, if they can put their hands on him HE'S COOKED!!!"

Here's Vince Carter who's still playing in this crap soft league talking about how most of the guys today would not be as good with the physicality of yesteryear:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk4xFL011XE

LOL!!!! A little tidbit for the millennial dweebs, the NBA was already going soft by the time Nash and Carter joined in 97 and 99! Imagine what it was like in the late 80's early 90's when Michael started his reign.

For an extra here’s a final video of the Bad Boy Pistons playing defense against Michael Jordan and the Bulls with illegal defense rules which actually gave more freedom to the defense because nobody knew how to interpret them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE&t=303s

Look at the Piston defenders basically IGNORING anybody who's standing at the 3 point line with guys like Laimbeer and Salley playing free safety down low NOT GUARDING ANYBODY. There is also some double teaming without the ball action for the people who think you can only do that know.

Can you imagine LeBald, Harden, Dumbrook, SImmons, Curry, Durant or any of the modern day rule enhanced "stars" in place of Michael on the late 80's Pistons trying to generate offense in the paint with NO SPACING, hand checking and NO FLAGRANT FOULS!!! They would Fed Ex their soft as!es in a DeLorean to 2019 within one quarter of that atmosphere.
Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards.

NBAGOAT

12-06-2019, 11:15 PM

reggie miller's success against the knicks is ok evidence someone like curry or harden would actually be pretty annoying for them to guard(yes they have worse stats but could be pretty respectable). I mean curry is another lvl at shooting contested 3's and harden is another lvl compared to miller at foul drawing.

The Knicks were a goat lvl defense but their one weakness is their opponents go to the ft line like 30 times a game. It doesnt matter what era it is, you play that physical and teams are going get ft's lol. It also is harder for 90s defenses to guard someone who's so good coming off screens and shooting 3's from 30 with only a couple feet of space. For reference the rockets in a higher pace league that older fans love referencing only get 29.6 fta/game and the next highest in the league is 26.7.

Bronbron23

12-06-2019, 11:26 PM

Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:

Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards. Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.

NBAGOAT

12-06-2019, 11:33 PM

Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.

pnr offense worked well at times in the 90's and early 00's if you had the personnel. On the flip side illegal screens werent called often. Most teams just preferred to play through the post however or using isolation. And yes it's obvious players are better from 3 now, a lot of contested ones are made. Compare wat percent of guards who had the ability to shoot like 35% on 3+attempts 15 years ago even to the percent now.

Edit: and it's hard to figt through screens consistently. teams had similar dilemma back then but you could pretty easily go to a 3v2 defense because there was one or two guys on the court who you're happy talking a 20 footer.

Bronbron23

12-06-2019, 11:41 PM

pnr offense worked well at times in the 90's and early 00's if you had the personnel. On the flip side illegal screens werent called often. Most teams just preferred to play through the post however or using isolation. And yes it's obvious players are better from 3 now, a lot of contested ones are made. Compare wat percent of guards who had the ability to shoot like 35% on 3+attempts 15 years ago even to the percent now.

Edit: and it's hard to figt through screens consistently. teams had similar dilemma back then but you could pretty easily go to a 3v2 defense because there was one or two guys on the court who you're happy talking a 20 footer.
Yes the 3 ball is used more now so players aobviously work on it more and are better st it. Theyre also open more though because of the fact players cant fight through screens anymore. I cant believe some of the foul couls refs make now when players try to fight through screens. Its so bad the defenders dont even try anymore. Its ridiculous.

Micku

12-07-2019, 12:17 AM

Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:

Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards.

Well, it's that and the 3 defensive sec. Sometimes the refs don't call it.

There are more info on players now, but they still do things back then that is more "complex" than what your analysis talk about on TV. They would notice players are good at going to their right, so they would force them to the left. Or if they are too good in the baseline, they would force them to the middle so they can trap them in the paint. They would know which player at which area would like to take the shot.

But the amount of 3pt shooting now really does improve on the spacing. So, it gives more breathing room for the perimeter player. The defense has to work a lot harder to guard now. Depending on which system you play, the offense could be complex or simple. Like with the Rockets, they just drive and kick. Sometimes they would do picks to get mismatch. That isn't as complex as the triangle or Kerr hybrid or Pop's motion offense.

It's a mixture of things thing. While the rules definitely help offense to flow better, increase the pace, and make offense easier as intended by the NBA; the coaching has something to do with it too with the emphasis on 3pt shooting.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 12:24 AM

Well, it's that and the 3 defensive sec. Sometimes the refs don't call it.

There are more info on players now, but they still do things back then that is more "complex" than what your analysis talk about on TV. They would notice players are good at going to their right, so they would force them to the left. Or if they are too good in the baseline, they would force them to the middle so they can trap them in the paint. They would know which player at which area would like to take the shot.

But the amount of 3pt shooting now really does improve on the spacing. So, it gives more breathing room for the perimeter player. The defense has to work a lot harder to guard now. Depending on which system you play, the offense could be complex or simple. Like with the Rockets, they just drive and kick. Sometimes they would do picks to get mismatch. That isn't as complex as the triangle or Kerr hybrid or Pop's motion offense.

It's a mixture of things thing. While the rules definitely help offense to flow better, increase the pace, and make offense easier as intended by the NBA; the coaching has something to do with it too with the emphasis on 3pt shooting.

I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.

Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.

However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.

Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.

In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.

So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.

Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.

I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 12:30 AM

Yes the 3 ball is used more now so players aobviously work on it more and are better st it. Theyre also open more though because of the fact players cant fight through screens anymore. I cant believe some of the foul couls refs make now when players try to fight through screens. Its so bad the defenders dont even try anymore. Its ridiculous.

i dont it's that bad on screens personally. Also on the flip side, few more illegal screens are getting called now. It's pretty undisputable that there are less fouls now however.

72-10

12-07-2019, 12:35 AM

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 12:36 AM

Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.

Here is my problem with this.

Current league ortg...109
1987 league ortg...108.3

Current league pace...101
1987 league pace...100.8

Current average 3's team attempts per game...34
1987 average 3's team attempts per game...5

So, if defense was so much better back then...why were they getting torched like they defenses are today? Even worse, back then, you didn't even have to worry about the 3...the offenses were very clearly playing a suboptimal strategy based on basic math.

We can argue rules and specifics...and I'll agree with a lot of what you'll likely say, but zooming out...it is kind of hard to argue that you can't play defense now, but back in 1987...they were playing real defense...while getting lit up by a laughable offensive strategy compared to now.

I guess you could argue that players were much better offensively back then, but ugh...that seems like a tough sell.

That is why I just think we have to just be specific about it being "easier now"...it is important to note that has to be relative to a specific era...because it sure as hell was a lot harder to score in 2003 than it was in 1987 and 2019.

72-10

12-07-2019, 12:37 AM

look at this disillusioned loser who thinks these shots are easy:roll:

i.e. he gets his own rebound and then makes a fallaway from like 18 feet

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 12:44 AM

I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.

Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.

However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.

Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.

In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.

So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.

Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.

I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.

ortg was inflated in the 80's because of a strategic choice to focus hard on offensive rebounding. Compared to now where teams like running back on defense as soon as a shot goes up. The shooting percentages arent fantastic so an argument can made it's still a bit harder to score back then.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 12:45 AM

if that were the case why did players get laid on their ass half the time they drove the paint

it's the case because what your claim is bs. Guys were not getting laid out on half of their drives

72-10

12-07-2019, 12:49 AM

it's the case because what your claim is bs. Guys were not getting laid out on half of their drives

please give me a quarter

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 12:52 AM

ortg was inflated in the 80's because of a strategic choice to focus hard on offensive rebounding. Compared to now where teams like running back on defense as soon as a shot goes up. The shooting percentages arent fantastic so an argument can made it's still a bit harder to score back then.

I guess, but defending against teams shooting only 5 threes a game is for sure easier to defend against.

I agree there is a lot to consider here, but one thing that I hope we can all agree on is that shooting only 5 threes on average per game as a team was clearly a suboptimal offensive strategy.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 12:56 AM

I guess, but defending against teams shooting only 5 threes a game is for sure easier to defend against.

I agree there is a lot to consider here, but one thing that I hope we can all agree on is that shooting only 5 threes on average per game as a team was clearly a suboptimal offensive strategy.

absolutely agree there. it's pretty remarkable that's not even widely accepted here however.

Micku

12-07-2019, 12:58 AM

I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.

Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.

However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.

Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.

In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.

So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.

Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.

I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.

Yeah.

The offense and general mindset was different back then. Compared to now, they weren't running the most efficient way, but it was harder to really penetrate then. They focused on the mid-range. 3pt shot was really a bad shot. Back then, it was more who could outrun their opponent and execute the offense in the half court by having good post play. The top teams were stacked, so they had options.

The pace started to slow down once the Pistons and the Bulls showed that they could do that. Teams started to copy them. Pistons revolutionized first.

[quote]

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 01:04 AM

Yeah.

The offense and general mindset was different back then. Compared to now, they weren't running the most efficient way, but it was harder to really penetrate then. They focused on the mid-range. 3pt shot was really a bad shot. Back then, it was more who could outrun their opponent and execute the offense in the half court by having good post play. The top teams were stacked, so they had options.

The pace started to slow down once the Pistons and the Bulls showed that they could do that. Teams started to copy them. Pistons revolutionized first.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-04-sp-2723-story.html

The late 80s and 90s is when it started to change. As you can see by the ppg, the pacing, the fg% and everything. But the Pistons weren't the only team doing this. Jazz had it. Rockets did something similar. The Celts also had this too. One of the best front lines in NBA history. It just that the Pistons weren't as talented, but they still won the chip. When they won, they were either the last or lowest pace teams in the league. they slowed the game down and not allow the teams to outrun them. The Lakers would destroy you due to their talent. Not to say defense didn't exist, cuz obviously it did. But the pacing was different.

It's basically the same throughout across eras. Once Shaq/Kobe started to win, teams wanted to copy them. Slow down the pace and all. Once the Suns started winning, teams were like maybe we can do this too. Then once LBJ did the whole superteam thing, players started to team up with each other. The Spurs took what Mike D'Antoni and P.Jax, mixed it together and had their run. The GSW did something similar.

Right, but clearly part of why it was harder to penetrate in 1987 had to do with the 3 point shot not being used appropriately.

Put it this way...if you transported the current offenses to 1987...I'd expect them to do better than they currently are doing now. Conversely, if you transported the 1987 offenses to now...I'd expect them to do worse.

So, my point, is that we have to be specific about which eras are "harder" or "easier"...huge difference between early 00's and mid 80's...

Completely agree about the progression over time...and it reached a breaking point in the early 00's...where defense had clearly won based on the rules and the game had shifted too far in that direction...hence they made the decision to free up players and change the rules...

Micku

12-07-2019, 01:25 AM

Right, but clearly part of why it was harder to penetrate in 1987 had to do with the 3 point shot not being used appropriately.

Put it this way...if you transported the current offenses to 1987...I'd expect them to do better than they currently are doing now. Conversely, if you transported the 1987 offenses to now...I'd expect them to do worse.

So, my point, is that we have to be specific about which eras are "harder" or "easier"...huge difference between early 00's and mid 80's...

Completely agree about the progression over time...and it reached a breaking point in the early 00's...where defense had clearly won based on the rules and the game had shifted too far in that direction...hence they made the decision to free up players and change the rules...

Oh yeah, I agree with the efficiency on the offense.

But, I would still say the eras which were harder or easier to score depends on what are you talking about. Like for perimeter players? Yeah, kind'a if you were a driver. The paint was more clogged up back then because the spacing wasn't good. But transition defense wasn't as good either with most teams. And with talent like the Celts, 76ers and Lakers, you were gonna get outrun.

Scoring in the paint or even driving in the half court set back then was going to be tough. And another fact that, if they choose to, the hard fouls are a bitch. Some flagrant fouls now aren't flagrant fouls back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kevin Mchale clothesline on Kurt Rambis didn't get him kicked out of the game. I don't even remember if it was tech. The commentators were like, "That's just part of the game. Play ball." Not that hard fouls like that was common, but the thought of it could affect the players.

They would give you the jumper, unless you are really really good at it. Like the best in the league. Fast breaks? Go for it. Half court set, and if you can't shoot? It might take some work. But there are plenty of stars back then who did fine.

But overall defense? Better as time went on until the early 00s. Efficiency on offense is better now too. Yes, the rules helped with that but also the value of the 3 like you mentioned.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 08:52 AM

Here is my problem with this.

Current league ortg...109
1987 league ortg...108.3

Current league pace...101
1987 league pace...100.8

Current average 3's team attempts per game...34
1987 average 3's team attempts per game...5

So, if defense was so much better back then...why were they getting torched like they defenses are today? Even worse, back then, you didn't even have to worry about the 3...the offenses were very clearly playing a suboptimal strategy based on basic math.

We can argue rules and specifics...and I'll agree with a lot of what you'll likely say, but zooming out...it is kind of hard to argue that you can't play defense now, but back in 1987...they were playing real defense...while getting lit up by a laughable offensive strategy compared to now.

I guess you could argue that players were much better offensively back then, but ugh...that seems like a tough sell.

That is why I just think we have to just be specific about it being "easier now"...it is important to note that has to be relative to a specific era...because it sure as hell was a lot harder to score in 2003 than it was in 1987 and 2019. well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 09:54 AM

well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.

I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.

Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.

For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.

And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.

My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.

I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.

So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...

Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.

FKAri

12-07-2019, 10:13 AM

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 12:27 PM

I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.

Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.

For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.

And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.

My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.

I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.

So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...

Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.
Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.

I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.

So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 12:28 PM

Totally agreed. Another thing was that the defender could hold his man a little bit back then. You can't as much anymore. But defenses ARE smarter and more deliberate nowadays than they were. They've also had to be with so many of their tools taken away.
Yeah i agree that you have to be a better defender now than before because now you basically cant cheat.

72-10

12-07-2019, 12:32 PM

the game's rules actually were formerly better tasked towards stopping one player than they are now

and, there used to be contact, often hard contact, on lane penetration oft times

what people forget is that playing defense of an intimidating nature instills a sense of intimidation in the offense

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 01:02 PM

Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.

I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.

So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.

I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.

However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...

Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...

That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.

Jameerthefear

12-07-2019, 01:26 PM

Was it really that hard to score in the paint in the 90s? If what DMavs posted is correct and the offensive rating is around the same, and you consider how few 3s were attempted, then that means the players would literally have to be scoring at the rim at a pretty high percentage. Unless everyone shot like Dirk, CP3, Curry, etc. from midrange. Even if they did it wouldn't be as efficient.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 01:28 PM

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 01:32 PM

For perimeter players?

It was tougher to score in the 90s. Compared to now that just isn't debatable imo. When you remove handchecking and invoke a 'freedom of movmement' rule, where basically offensive players can never be touched, that makes it pretty clear. With that said the difference isn't what nostalgia-laden fans claim. Overall? League wide offense compared with today was around the same range. Despite not being able to 'be physical', today's teams have put up respectable defensive ratings. Especially in the postseason.

The best era of defense has got to be from ~1998-2004. Both statistically and with the eye test. Most of the high volume perimeter scorers had consistent INEFFICIENT games. Some with entire seasons.

Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.

Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.

That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 02:02 PM

I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.

However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...

Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...

That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.
Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.

If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.

Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 02:05 PM

Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.

Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.

That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.

That's the problem.

Teams now play exactly the same.

Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.

When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.

Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme. Without a doubt. The '04 Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.

egokiller

12-07-2019, 02:09 PM

Why are some struggling to discern the difference between a player bringing the ball up court with his back to the defender in the 90s vs bringing it up court in today's game without the need to have your back to the defender?

It's pretty obvious when you watch the games how it was more physical back then.

The reason why they had to bring it up that way back then is because actual defense was allowed to be played and it was more physical.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 02:09 PM

Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.

If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.

Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.

Of course I am...and have repeatedly said so. The rules are much easier now for perimeter players post 2004. But, that kind of makes my point actually...

The problem, again, comes back to the ratings being nearly identical...if offense is easier, which we agree, and the current offensive strategy is superior...

Then why are the ratings so similar? Again, I understand there is nuance to all this, but sometimes just zooming out is a really good starting point.

I just don't think you guys realize how easy it was to score back in the 80's and early 90's as well...players/teams were not working nearly as hard on defense as you seem to think they were.

Again, we also all agree that the late 90's and early 00's had the best defense...and what do you know...you see a significant difference in ratings...and the pace at which the game was played as well...and teams were playing closer to optimal offense in terms of shooting 3's during that time as well. Not fully because there were more bad shots being routinely taken likely than now, but clearly better than taking 5 threes a game like I've talked about.

Who cares about the attempts of recent champions when they are all in the same relative ballpark to the league they are playing in? I'm talking about huge disparities in attempts on the whole.

You make it sound like I'm arguing that shooting more 3's automatically makes you win a title. Nevermind, you actually said basically that. LOL, dude, complete strawman...not to mention, again, you need to learn that defense matters for titles...you completely leave that out of all of your analysis when it comes to Lebron ball as well.

You bring up the Rockets...care to guess how the Rockets offense has done lately?

17? 2nd
18? 1st
19? 2nd
20? 3rd

Not sure what your point is. Winning isn't all about offense. Flawed argument.

Smoke117

12-07-2019, 02:11 PM

That's the problem.

Teams now play exactly the same.

Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.

When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.

Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme though. Without a doubt. The Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 02:21 PM

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbied for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 02:22 PM

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

No doubt, but I do think it is fair that a combination of everything led to defenses clearly being better back then.

But you are right to also point out that the offense being played then was not optimal either.

Teams weren't taking enough 3's and they were taking way too many long 2's.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 02:24 PM

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbed for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.

Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.

I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 02:36 PM

[/B]

Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.

I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.

Right, but I also think its "worth a mention" to point the part you bolded. ISO hero ball was an extension of the rules from that era.

"3>2"

Yes. That is obvious. But its also harder to make three's @ a respectable clip when defenses are more physical. And when they can put the clamps on you, full-court.

Everything is intertwined. But the main reason you see OPTIMAL offense today is because of the rules. Unless your argument is that it took ~40 years to realize 3 is greater than 2.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 02:43 PM

Of course I am...and have repeatedly said so. The rules are much easier now for perimeter players post 2004. But, that kind of makes my point actually...

The problem, again, comes back to the ratings being nearly identical...if offense is easier, which we agree, and the current offensive strategy is superior...

Then why are the ratings so similar? Again, I understand there is nuance to all this, but sometimes just zooming out is a really good starting point.

I just don't think you guys realize how easy it was to score back in the 80's and early 90's as well...players/teams were not working nearly as hard on defense as you seem to think they were.

Again, we also all agree that the late 90's and early 00's had the best defense...and what do you know...you see a significant difference in ratings...and the pace at which the game was played as well...and teams were playing closer to optimal offense in terms of shooting 3's during that time as well. Not fully because there were more bad shots being routinely taken likely than now, but clearly better than taking 5 threes a game like I've talked about.

Who cares about the attempts of recent champions when they are all in the same relative ballpark? I'm talking about huge disparities in attempts on the whole.

You make it sound like I'm arguing that shooting more 3's automatically makes you win a title. well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 02:45 PM

Right, but I also think its "worth a mention" to point the part you bolded. ISO hero ball was an extension of the rules from that era.

"3>2"

Yes. That is obvious. But its also harder to make three's @ a respectable clip when defenses are more physical. And when they can put the clamps on you, full-court.

Everything is intertwined. But the main reason you see OPTIMAL offense today is because of the rules. Unless your argument is that it took ~40 years to realize 3 is greater than 2.

I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here, lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.

Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 02:47 PM

well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.

Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.

Ainosterhaspie

12-07-2019, 02:54 PM

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbied for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.
I disagree with the idea that the rules from 98 to 2004 were balanced. If they were there wouldn't be a anomalously low offensive output. That era stands out from basically the rest of basketball history as the lowest scoring era in basketball. If the rules allow such strong defense that offense is significantly lower than the rest of basketball history it isn't really balanced.

Enforcing the hand-check ban which had been in place since 1980 but frequently not enforced, especially against good defenders who deliberately gamed the system, was necessary to bring balance to the game.

People use the word "hand-check" to describe something that isn't actually hand-checking. Hand-checking is, as the word suggests, simply checking where the player is using your hand, getting a feel for their motion so that you can react more effectively when they move. Pushing and holding a player are not hand-checking, and they have always been something that is meant to be illegal.

The problem is it is very difficult for officials to differentiate between legitimate hand checking and illegitimate holding and pushing because the line between the two is very fuzzy. Savvy defenders have taken advantage of this through the years and pushed the boundaries so the league has had to step in and crack down on it repeatedly. This crackdown didn't just happen in 04, it happened in the early 90s as well as the early eighties.

I would argue that the biggest problem that is leading to so many threes so easily is that screeners are regularly allowed to move, shove men that are trying to track the 3-point shooter, stick their arms and elbows out to make themselves bigger than they should be allowed to, and do various other things that make it impossible for a defender to stick with the three-point shooter. If the league simply cracked down heavily on any sort of moving screen, attempt to shove out a hip, or use of arms and elbows to make the body wider, defenders would do a significantly better job contesting threes.

In essence the problem isn't that defenders are not allowed enough physicality, the problem is that the offense is allowed too much physicality. This is also seen when defenders are called for fouls when it is clear that the offensive player is the one who created the contact. Referees need to stop calling fouls when a player who is driving changes their angle to slam into the defender's body. Most of those situations I think should be no calls.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 02:59 PM

Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.
Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 03:00 PM

I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here, lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.

Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.

Who's arguing that? I'm saying its tougher to make them at a decent clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three, or have a wet jumper? Not much anyone can do 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality? The shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses NOW than I do, but also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 03:00 PM

Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are

For sure, we agree on that.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 03:06 PM

Who's arguing that? I said that its tougher to make them at a respectable clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three. Or have a wet jumper. Not much anyone can do in a 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality, the shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses now than I do. But also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.

I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.

You brought up the rules...and I agreed, completely, that is part of it.

I just also think teams were clearly late to realization that 3's matter. They certainly didn't realize it in the 80's...got smarter in the 90's and 00's...and then have realized the power of the 3 and the detriment of the long 2 more and more now.

Currently, 38% of attempts come from 3. Back in 2007...three years after the rules change...21% of attempts came from 3.

My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 03:18 PM

I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.

I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".

My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?

Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tight and more physically?

I could say yes to your question. But I can't ignore the rules either.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 03:23 PM

I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".

Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tighter and more physically?

I could say yes, but I can't ignore the rules either.

I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 03:39 PM

I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.

They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 03:47 PM

They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.

I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-07-2019, 03:56 PM

I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.

We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 04:00 PM

We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.

Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.

Micku

12-07-2019, 04:14 PM

Wait a minute, hold up, hold up.

I do like that you guys are bringing up the amount of iso ball that was very prevalent in the late 90s and early 00s. The defense was getting more and more abusive of the rules too.

But there were bad shots also being made and people were complaining about how the teams were playing. They did miss the fast tempo of the 80s and early 90s and say the players weren't making the smart plays. Even when I looked back at the 80s and early 90s, they did better shot selection relative to the era. It seemed to me a bunch of iso plays, even with the top teams. Some of the bad shot selection was ill advised 3pt shots, taking too many dribbles, and etc.

In the 80s, sometimes when they were open, they shot it. And they also kicked the ball down to the post and work inside and out. It's also true that defense got better over time. But what is also true in the 80s, they did not want you to drive in the paint in a half court set.

I think we should also acknowledge that a lot of the top teams in the 80s and early 90s had more offensive talent than what we saw in the late 90s and early 00s. Almost similar to the Bulls, had some plays, especially in the late 90s, where MJ just had to carry the Bulls offensively, many teams were emulating that with their sole star player. Did you guys remember how Spurs playing back then? In the 99-03? It wasn't as pretty as the Spurs in 12-14. It wasn't a motion offense it seemed. It was give the ball Duncan and hope for the best. The Raptors? AI 76ers? Compared that to the showtime Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even Pistons where they were multiple hof in their prime or still solid on the team?

The Kings were like the only team that I can think of that ran a higher pace than the others, had more passing than the other teams, and still was solid defensively and great offensively. They were pretty entertaining basketball. I guess the Mavs too. The Lakers were solid of course, but they were the duo.

Part of the reason why playing at a lower pace got popular in the first place was because of the Pistons did it in the 80s. They made defense more popular to play, especially in how they played transition defense and controlling the pace. They did it so teams like the Celts and Lakers with the amount of talent that they had won't be able to just out score them based upon talent. And as we moved to the 90s, the top teams weren't as talented as the top teams of the 80s. Everyone was adapting the Pistons. The Pistons weren't the only teams to do this tho. Jazz done it, but not as successful. The Bulls did it. The Celts did it to some extent.

The point I'm trying to make is that, it's all cause and effect.

80s were ruled by the top teams running you out the building. But they also had top talent and played the half court set very well.

Late 80s, Pistons made defense popular. They were other teams that did it, but teams paid attention to them more cuz final appearances I'm guessing. Slowing the pace down, getting back on d faster in transition. Most teams back then try to beat each other with transition.

Early 90s: heavy talent top teams were gone, Bulls ruled. Also played at slow pace. Most teams copy whoever is at the top. MJ ruled. The Pistons also did too many cheap shots, so the NBA was harsher on the hard fouls.

Mid 90s: MJ retired. League realized perimeter play increase rating and notice points were going down. Modified handchecking and put the 3pt line down to increase scoring.

Late 90s: MJ came back. Crisis avoided. Teams progressively started to slow the pace down even further.

Early 00s: Bulls MJ was no more. Teams played a super slow pace. Media tried to make a bunch of next MJs because "MJ" like brings ratings. A bunch of iso wing players. Shaq/Kobe era.

Mid 00s: A bunch of articles and complaints of some owners about the state of the NBA. Centers like Shaq, Mutombo camping in the paint. Slow ass pace. People missing the 80s. Disliking some iso ball. So, rule change to make perimeter play easier. Zone to encourage more passing and to stop Shaq. Elimination of handchecking, 3 defense second rule. Fights and I think flagrants were more punishable due to Malice at the Palace. Dress code due to NBA not liking the thuggish style. Decreasing the half court second rule from 10-8 secs. This is all in like a 2 year span or something.

Modern nba: Mike D'Antoni being the biggest influence and his Suns. And analytics. Overtime, along with the rules changing to increase freedom of movement with perimeter play, increase the tempo did happen. Value of the 3. Pop and Steve Kerr took what Mike D'Antoni did and just made some adjustments to it.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 04:19 PM

Micku...

I think most of us agree with your main points about it all being connected.

What I'm saying...is that regardless of rules...taking less than 15 threes a game is not optimal based on the basic math of NBA basketball since the 3 point line was implemented.

What the exact optimal number is will depend, of course, on the defensive rules, but in the last 40 years...there have been no version of rules, in my opinion, in which it would have been a good idea to take so few 3's like teams did in previous eras.

Micku

12-07-2019, 04:19 PM

Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.

Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 04:22 PM

Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.

Of course.

Always extremes, but the math is really not in your favor at some point.

3's are only one part of the game, and can be both a detriment and positive.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 05:04 PM

I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.
I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the
perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.

Would it go down to 5 a game like the 80's? No thats way to low but it probably be in the low 20 range or so

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 05:09 PM

I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.

I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc. You guys make it sound like it was all at the rim...which we all know isn't true. Players took way too many long 2's...taking a few steps back not only opens up the court more for your teammates, but also gives your team more points.

It wasn't all the rules...it was the conventional wisdom that took too long to realize how powerful the 3 really is.

For example, Iverson took 28% of his shots as long 2's...how did the rules prevent 3's...but not long 2's?

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.

You guys are inflating the impact of hand-checking on the ability to take shots. Yes, it mattered, but the notion that is was just too hard to take 3's in the modern era just isn't true...hell, it isn't even true in the toughest defensive era of the late 90's and early 00's...as 3's increased over time...

Just to make sure you are following this. You claimed that the only reason teams took more 3's was because of the rules changes...and would never have come to that realization.

Problem is, 3's steadily increased over time despite defense getting better over time. The defense, for example, was much better in the late 90's and early 00's than it was in the 80's and early 90's...however, the exact opposite of what you claim happened. As defense got better...teams slowly but surely started taking more 3's.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

So, no, defense got better, not worse from 92 to 04.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 05:15 PM

Micku

12-07-2019, 05:21 PM

I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc.

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.

I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 05:25 PM

Yeah but your talking about elite players who can get a shot off whenever they want. Now yiu have guys like vanfleet who can off more thress than any of those guys.

And again teams were slow to do it for a reason as i already explained. It just wouldn't work the same with the old defensive rules. Hopefully they bring them back and we can see for sure.

Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug:

Also, elite players are what drives all this stuff. Kobe, for example, taking more 3's would have made him harder to guard...and if he's harder to guard...then his team is harder to guard. Not rocket science.

Lastly, please stop creating straw-mans of my argument. Nowhere have I said that this would work as well before the rules change. Not sure why you need to create a fake argument to go after...just respond to what I say.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 05:28 PM

I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.

Again, you guys have to really stop pretending like I'm arguing that rules had nothing to do with it. I've repeatedly agreed with that.

Another part, however, was clearly that teams were getting smarter over time and realizing the power of the 3.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 05:32 PM

Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug: well you conveniently used 13 in 98 but the truth is from 94 to 04 it hovered around 15. It went up and down slightly throughout that span. Then from 04 it consistently went up until it is where it is now.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 05:37 PM

well you conveniently used 13 in 98 but the truth is from 94 to 04 it hovered around 15. It went up and down slightly throughout that span. Then from 04 it consistently went up until it is where it is now.

I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 05:39 PM

Micku

12-07-2019, 05:43 PM

Again, you guys have to really stop pretending like I'm arguing that rules had nothing to do with it. I've repeatedly agreed with that.

Another part, however, was clearly that teams were getting smarter over time and realizing the power of the 3.

You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 05:47 PM

You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.

No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 05:49 PM

You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.

Yea I think you can only check contested shots from recent years. However if you’re talking about role players, a lot of their midrange shots were open. It was pretty often you see a guy from 18-20ft who was a catch a shoot guy. Tht happens like twice a game now. Ofc the fact that modern guys practice the 3 is a factor too.

Since you were mostly talking about contested shots I thought you were referring more to stars. I agree they could do whatever they want but in general they were throwing away points taking long contested 2s instead of contested 3s

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 05:53 PM

I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense. i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.

Micku

12-07-2019, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]For the vast majority of stars, there

warriorfan

12-07-2019, 05:57 PM

No hand checking = can

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 06:00 PM

i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.

The problem with this is that...if true, you expect there to be an explosion of 3's right after the rules changed if they knew the true power of the 3.

And that isn't what you saw...and again, you are counting the 3 years in which they shortened the line...which skews things a bit.

But, what do we see after the rules changed? You see a slight increases... from in line with teams still figuring things out and being late to the realization...just like I've claimed.

And, again...back to the elite player stuff....the fact that elite players weren't taking them in favor of long 2's just shows teams didn't know the power of the 3 yet. You claimed stars could get what they want essentially....why weren't they taking the 3...the better shot...if teams knew?

And, no, again...I don't say that it "started after 05" when they realized. I think it was a slow process from the 80's to present. Again dude...they started increasing the number of 3's from when the line was implemented over time...I'm saying they were late to fully realize just how many should threes they should have been taking.

I'm saying that if teams had all the current knowledge under the rules of the previous eras...80s, 90s, early 00s...that teams would shoot quite a bit more 3's...that is my argument.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 06:07 PM

I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.
Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 06:08 PM

I was never talking about stars tho. I even said that stars could do whatever they want. It didn't stop Kobe, T-Mac, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter for taking more 3s. I was talking about the playmaking and the effect of the rules change to stop/make an open shot. Like Steve Nash, driving and kicking to a Joe Johnson or Raja Bell or whatever.

The drive and kick. Some players would stop dead when facing against a big guy in the paint. I was wondering of hand checking, zone or 3 defensive sec had anything to do with the % of an open 3pt. It would be harder to create something off the dribble with the style.

But it's not a significant % enough for me to really say. Not that it really matters. Plus more teams practice that shot. We won't know unless it goes back to those rules and maybe even the pace. Pace would affect the fga, but still you could take % of your shot and just go for the 3. Like 50% of your shots are 3pt attempts.

Yea I saw your comment later. Definitely agree there are less drive and kicks but I would argue to explain the % not being significant that there were other ways to get role players open jumpshots. Kick outs on postups, bad rotations, just having someone like Jordan who demanded hard doubles, and open shots in fast breaks which you saw plenty of in the 80s at least

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 06:11 PM

Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.

They still be taking a bit more than 20. It’s not like handchecking makes it easier to get to the rim. You would be sacrificing contested 3s for contested 2s and thts a drop in efficiency for a large majority of guys. There are a lot more guys than harden who can get 3s off without screens at an ok clip, even a mediocre shooter like lebron. Most teams have at least a guy

Edit: I forgot post ups you see more of those but I feel like current teams would use the post to kick out to shooters. The warriors loved doing that with draymond; draymond trying to score from the post was the last option

Micku

12-07-2019, 06:11 PM

No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?

I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 06:16 PM

Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.

I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to take the time to read if you are going to post. I have already said, a number of times, that of course the rules play a role and of course the league is softer on perimeter players now than it used to be.

Of course they could not do the same efficiency under the rules back in the late 90's or early 00's...I have made that abundantly clear.

I've already answered the other two parts as well. I won't pretend to know what the optimal amount of 3's was in previous eras. However, I will say that it sure as hell wasn't 5 in the 80's...and it sure as hell wasn't around 15 in the 90's or early 00's. Mainly because, again, you are giving those up in favor of long 2's a lot...and that is just dumb.

I think you are confusing how role players generally score. In no era were role players consistently beating their man to score. Doesn't happen today and it didn't happen in the past that often.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 06:20 PM

I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.

Okay, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

It is easier now on perimeter players and to answer your question...role players wouldn't be as open as they are now.

However, not taking enough 3's is also easier to defend...so when we evaluate this stuff...we can't only look at one side of it.

The offenses back then made life easier on the defenses by not taking better shots.

Teams settled for way too many long 2's rather than taking 3's...both from stars and role players.

Think about the Bibby/Webber pick and pop...just as an example...they should have been doing that higher and both of them should have been shooting more 3's...

Yes, it was harder back then, but not to the point that it makes taking long 2's better.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 06:26 PM

Also, you guys can't just remove "stars" or "elite players" from the analysis...they are the driving force of the league.

We are talking about offenses making life easier on defenses by not taking enough 3's...I have no idea why you guys think stars aren't part of that.

Stars taking too many long 2's makes their offense worse and makes life easier on the defense.

In addition, talking about driving/kicking...being able to sag off players on the perimeter knowing that they aren't going to take shots from certain areas on the court...congests the paint and makes it harder to do the very thing you are referencing.

So, yes...it is all connected in the way you guys are talking...but it is also connected the other way as well...that is why I keep bringing it back to that.

You can't ignore that it is easier to guard teams taking such a low amount of 3's.

Micku

12-07-2019, 06:27 PM

Yea I saw your comment later. Definitely agree there are less drive and kicks but I would argue to explain the % not being significant that there were other ways to get role players open jumpshots. Kick outs on postups, bad rotations, just having someone like Jordan who demanded hard doubles, and open shots in fast breaks which you saw plenty of in the 80s at least

Yeah. I agree.

And the stars would adjust.

But I do wonder if guys like James Harden would still be able to create as many shots using his style? I think it's safe to assume that he, himself, won't be as efficient due to his performance in the playoffs.

I was thinking initially that they would have to put the back to the basket and post up more instead of taking them off the dribble.

That still won't change the amount of 3s. I thought it would change the amount of open 3s thus reducing the %, but probably not. I dunno. As you said, the % probably won't be significant enough.

And definitely in transition and open shots, teams would shoot 3s. But there are other ways with use of the picks.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 06:31 PM

I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to take the time to read if you are going to post. I have already said, a number of times, that of course the rules play a role and of course the league is softer on perimeter players now than it used to be.

Of course they could not do the same efficiency under the rules back in the late 90's or early 00's...I have made that abundantly clear.

I've already answered the other two parts as well. I won't pretend to know what the optimal amount of 3's was in previous eras. However, I will say that it sure as hell wasn't 5 in the 80's...and it sure as hell wasn't around 15 in the 90's or early 00's. Mainly because, again, you are giving those up in favor of long 2's a lot...and that is just dumb.

I think you are confusing how role players generally score. In no era were role players consistently beating their man to score. Doesn't happen today and it didn't happen in the past that often.
I actually said in the statement that you agreed to that but i guess you didnt read that either.

And i obviously know how role players score but im not sure you do based on that statement because theres more role players ever scoring lots of points and shooting lots of threes. As you say its not because they're breaking guys down so whats it because of? Its because theyre open more often than not because of these defensive rules. Guys like vanfleet, dangelo Russell, lou williams, jj Reddick ect are all role players who look like border line stars in this era because of the rules. Then you have border line stars like beal, siakam, young,wiggins, booker ect who look like super stars.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 06:36 PM

I actually said in the statement that you agreed to that but i guess you didnt read that either.

And i obviously know how role players score but im not sure you do based on that statement because theres more role players ever scoring lots of points and shooting lots of threes. As you say its not because they're breaking guys down so whats it because of? Its because theyre open more often than not because of these defensive rules. Guys like vanfleet, dangelo Russell, lou williams, jj Reddick ect are all role players who look like border line stars in this era because of the rules. Then you have border line stars like beal, siakam, young,wiggins, booker ect who look like super stars.

You asked the question and then said "it sounds like"...when I've made that abundantly clear.

I'm saying this;

The rules absolutely make offense easier in the league now than it was from 98 to 04. This is without question for me.

However, before we go much further I think it is important to note that offenses made life easier on defenses back then by taking a suboptimal amount of 3's. Again, it isn't just about role players...stars didn't take enough either back then. You can't just remove stars from the equation.

Certainly there were no "rules" preventing teams from taking more 3's back in 06...I hope you'd agree with that as the perimeter rules back then might be just as soft. So, what was it....if it wasn't teams being slow to realize how many 3's they should be taking...???

Lastly, when you bring up guys like Fred...what era are you comparing now to? Are you comparing it to the 80's when teams scored about as much and played at the same pace despite not even shooting any 3's really? The early 90's when it was about the same?

That is my point...you can't start bemoaning JJ unless you tell me which era you are comparing it to. Because outside of the late 90's or early 00's...you just don't see a huge difference league wide...and, again, those old teams were not taking enough 3's by your own admission...which made defense easier.

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 06:37 PM

Yeah. I agree.

And the stars would adjust.

But I do wonder if guys like James Harden would still be able to create as many shots using his style? I think it's safe to assume that he, himself, won't be as efficient due to his performance in the playoffs.

I was thinking initially that they would have to put the back to the basket and post up more instead of taking them off the dribble.

That still won't change the amount of 3s. I thought it would change the amount of open 3s thus reducing the %, but probably not. I dunno. As you said, the % probably won't be significant enough.

And definitely in transition and open shots, teams would shoot 3s. But there are other ways with use of the picks.

Harden wouldn

Micku

12-07-2019, 06:45 PM

Okay, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

It is easier now on perimeter players and to answer your question...role players wouldn't be as open as they are now.

However, not taking enough 3's is also easier to defend...so when we evaluate this stuff...we can't only look at one side of it.

The offenses back then made life easier on the defenses by not taking better shots.

Teams settled for way too many long 2's rather than taking 3's...both from stars and role players.

Think about the Bibby/Webber pick and pop...just as an example...they should have been doing that higher and both of them should have been shooting more 3's...

Yes, it was harder back then, but not to the point that it makes taking long 2's better.

Oh yeah. We don't really disagree on much other than the "open shot" thing I was trying to point out. Which I feel doesn't have a significance thing anyway after checking. As Warriorsfan said as simple as possible lol,

"No hand checking = can

Ainosterhaspie

12-07-2019, 06:46 PM

This really isn't that complicated. For 35 years after the three-point shot was introduced, teams would rather have a player at the three-point line step up and take a long two than shoot the three. It was ignorant, it was bad basketball, but that is what was taught and believed to be the right way to play. After all, the thinking went, if you step forward it's a higher percentage shot. So time and again guys who had an opportunity to take a 3-point shot would instead step up and take a two-point shot. It had nothing to do with any rule in play at the time. Players consistently chose not to shoot open threes and instead stepped into long twos.

Then finally someone realized the math says the higher percentage volume two point shot does not generate as many points as the lower percentage three-point shot. That ephiphany is what changed the game far more than any rule change.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 07:14 PM

You asked the question and then said "it sounds like"...when I've made that abundantly clear.

I'm saying this;

The rules absolutely make offense easier in the league now than it was from 98 to 04. This is without question for me.

However, before we go much further I think it is important to note that offenses made life easier on defenses back then by taking a suboptimal amount of 3's. Again, it isn't just about role players...stars didn't take enough either back then. You can't just remove stars from the equation.

Certainly there were no "rules" preventing teams from taking more 3's back in 06...I hope you'd agree with that as the perimeter rules back then might be just as soft. So, what was it....if it wasn't teams being slow to realize how many 3's they should be taking...???

Lastly, when you bring up guys like Fred...what era are you comparing now to? Are you comparing it to the 80's when teams scored about as much and played at the same pace despite not even shooting any 3's really? The early 90's when it was about the same?

That is my point...you can't start bemoaning JJ unless you tell me which era you are comparing it to. Because outside of the late 90's or early 00's...you just don't see a huge difference league wide...and, again, those old teams were not taking enough 3's by your own admission...which made defense easier.
Ive made it clear myself i was talking about the 90's.

And its a copy cat league so yeah it took it bit of time for teams to realize that the rules made the 3 ball more useful. Phonix with nash started and teams followed and then orlando increased it a few years after and teams followed and then houston with morey after that and teams followed again. So yeah it was a slow realization But ive already agreed with you on that part. Again where we differ is how much of that increase would of been possible if the rules were different. I dont think anyone knows for sure. Again hopefully they bring back physical defence and we can find out.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 07:32 PM

Ive made it clear myself i was talking about the 90's.

And its a copy cat league so yeah it took it bit of time for teams to realize that the rules made the 3 ball more useful. Phonix with nash started and teams followed and then orlando increased it a few years after and teams followed and then houston with morey after that and teams followed again. So yeah it was a slow realization But ive already agreed with you on that part. Again where we differ is how much of that increase would of been possible if the rules were different. I dont think anyone knows for sure. Again hopefully they bring back physical defence and we can find out.

When in the 90's though? 91 is a whole lot different than 98.

In 98 the drtg was 105 and the pace was 90.

In 91 the drtg was 108 and the pace was 98.

Completely different.

I don't even care to argue about what would or wouldn't have been possible to realize without the rules changing...I'm saying that it is objectively dumber to shoot so few 3's in favor of long 2's that the league used to do for most of the last 40 years.

And to ignore that taking more bad shots, like teams did, makes defense easier...is missing part of the equation.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 07:33 PM

Micku

12-07-2019, 07:41 PM

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Harden wouldn

Ainosterhaspie

12-07-2019, 07:42 PM

:applause:
It's what you've been saying and you're right.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 07:48 PM

It's what you've been saying and you're right.

I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.

Micku

12-07-2019, 08:00 PM

I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.

Yeah.

From what I understood, could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the notion that 3pt>long 2s or anything of the sort. Or that offense now is more efficient than 80s or so.

It's the minor things. Like the rules made it easier to be able to shoot the 3 at a higher chip and/or they are more open to shoot the 3. Almost like a domino effect or the rules change just indirectly made it easier for teams to get 3pt shots.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 08:04 PM

Yeah.

From what I understood, could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the notion that 3pt>long 2s or anything of the sort. Or that offense now is more efficient than 80s or so.

It's the minor things. Like the rules made it easier to be able to shoot the 3 at a higher chip and/or they are more open to shoot the 3. Almost like a domino effect or the rules change just indirectly made it easier for teams to get 3pt shots.

Absolutely.

My main point was just that while defense was harder to score against at times in the past...especially 98-04...offense simply wasn't as good back then either because teams simply did not understand how dumb it was to take a ton of long 2's.

That really was it...and that if you played that era again with teams knowing what they do now...I'd bet a lot of money that those offenses would shoot considerably more 3's and far less long 2's.

Shit, just look at 07...again, after the rules change;

07 - 23% were long 2's...21% were 3's

20 - 8% are long 2's...38% are 3's

You can't explain that by the rules alone. It was a shift in the mindset of players/teams because of analytics.

In no way would teams ever take 24% or whatever of their shots from 16 ft to the 3 point line like they did in the past.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 08:42 PM

I think Harden has the most contested 3s in the past 4 years? Kobe used to be similar, but Kobe shot at a lower percentage. And this was post prime Kobe, so I dunno if we have the stats to see how good he was at his prime. But yeah, I think his style would be affected the most.

Maybe, maybe not. I think they would adjust the way they would get the shots, but probably still shoot it. I don't know if it'll decrease if at all. According to b-ball reference, the % of long 2s was about 23-24% of where teams attempted their shots in 03-04. The 3 was 19-20%. Nowadays it's like 38% for 3 to 8% for the long 2.

As DMAVS41 mentioned, it just coaches realizing that's the most efficient shot. The long 2 is the worst shot in basketball. I don't really see that much of a benefit performing the long 2 than shooting the 3 other than a couple of situations. 3 pt shots provide spacing, you'll get an extra point, and it allow the stars to operate with more room. If the player is a good passer, then it's a gamble to double. However depending on the player. Like if you are just that bad a shooting the 3, then just go for the 2.

The increase physical defense may lead to less open 3s, but I dunno if that's a significant % to change things up. The only thing that I can think of would be less James Harden style. Iso at the top, dribble to the paint and get a foul or kick out. Since there's less freedom, he may have to change it up a bit.

Shooting 3s is better than shooting long 2s. Now that it's known, you'll find more teams doing that despite the rules.
I agree that for the most part long threes are better than long 2's. I wonder what the percentages are for the post from than to now though. Seems like gaurds would post up alot more back then compared to now. And its it not like im saying threes would be down to 10 a game or something. Its at 33 now i believe and i was saying the rules would make it low 20's or so. Im not sure what it would be if they brought the old rules back but i know it would be less. The League would adjust like they always do and they would probably get back to alot more post play.

If what you guys are saying is true i guess college basketball never got the memo. Theyve been around the same attempts per game for the last 20 plus year. I think everyone would agree that perimeter defence in college is more like the old rules than the nba rules now. the The best college teams in the country for the last 20 plus years have consistently shot in between 18 and 24 threes a game.

Right around what i said the nba would be at if they brought back the old rules

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 08:48 PM

When in the 90's though? 91 is a whole lot different than 98.

In 98 the drtg was 105 and the pace was 90.

In 91 the drtg was 108 and the pace was 98.

Completely different.

I don't even care to argue about what would or wouldn't have been possible to realize without the rules changing...I'm saying that it is objectively dumber to shoot so few 3's in favor of long 2's that the league used to do for most of the last 40 years.

And to ignore that taking more bad shots, like teams did, makes defense easier...is missing part of the equation.
Ok so why has college basketball shot around the same amount of threes for the last 20 plus years? Perimeter defefence in college has always been like the old nba rules to this day defenders can still grab, body, hand check and aggressively fight through screens. For the last 20 years the best college teams have shot in the 20's from threes. Why havnt they increased the amount of threes they take?

NBAGOAT

12-07-2019, 08:59 PM

I agree that for the most part long threes are better than long 2's. I wonder what the percentages are for the post from than to now though. Seems like gaurds would post up alot more back then compared to now. And its it not like im saying threes would be down to 10 a game or something. Its at 33 now i believe and i was saying the rules would make it low 20's or so. Im not sure what it would be if they brought the old rules back but i know it would be less. The League would adjust like they always do and they would probably get back to alot more post play.

If what you guys are saying is true i guess college basketball never got the memo. Theyve been around the same attempts per game for the last 20 plus year. I think everyone would agree that perimeter defence in college is more like the old rules than the nba rules now. the The best college teams in the country for the last 20 plus years have consistently shot in between 18 and 24 threes a game.

Right around what i said the nba would be at if they brought back the old rules

phila used to synergy stats from all time greats. There are like 5 guys who are super efficient in the post for it to be worth it. hakeem who's one of them is at roughly 1.13ppp on postups which is fantastic but can be exceeded by plenty of shooters. Jordan's another one is at 1.17.

Sources: http://i.imgur.com/mI9vr92.png ; https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1467808

Thing about 18-24 is colleges used to shoot a lot more than the nba and 18-24 is only for a 40min game which less possessions. Analytics is just less of a thing in college basketball too and there's a far bigger talent disaprity. Coaches have a bit more job security and can get away with playing teams how they want. Pop for example who hates the 3 i'm guessing would love his teams to take only 15 3's a game but it's just really hard to win that way.

Edit: finally you're wrong about there being no increase. super simplistic analysis but the top ranked team in 2000 in 3's attempted per game was around 27 and lowest was 10. Last year there were multiple teams above 35 and lowest in the country was still like 13. Not nearly the increase you seen in the nba but there's an increase

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 08:59 PM

Ok so why has college basketball shot around the same amount of threes for the last 20 plus years? Perimeter defefence in college has always been like the old nba rules to this day defenders can still grab, body, hand check and aggressively fight through screens. For the last 20 years the best college teams have shot in the 20's from threes. Why havnt they increased the amount of threes they take?

I have no idea. I don't know anything about college basketball. Not sure how that is related to the NBA.

Forget the why for a second though.

Are you arguing that, if you could advise a team...lets say back in the early 90's...are you saying that you wouldn't tell them they should shoot more 3's and less long 2's?

Like, what are you trying to say? That you think taking a ton of shots 16ft to the 3 point line is a good idea?

Also, why is it easier to shoot from 21 ft in terms of defense than it is from the 3 point line?

You really don't think Bibby/Webber should have been running that action higher up on the court and taking more threes? You really think both of them taking a combined 2 threes per game in the 2002 season was optimal?

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 09:32 PM

I have no idea. I don't know anything about college basketball. Not sure how that is related to the NBA.

Forget the why for a second though.

Are you arguing that, if you could advise a team...lets say back in the early 90's...are you saying that you wouldn't tell them they should shoot more 3's and less long 2's?

Like, what are you trying to say? That you think taking a ton of shots 16ft to the 3 point line is a good idea?

Also, why is it easier to shoot from 21 ft in terms of defense than it is from the 3 point line?

You really don't think Bibby/Webber should have been running that action higher up on the court and taking more threes? You really think both of them taking a combined 2 threes per game was optimal?fair enough i watch alot of college ball but if you dont i wont bother going in on it.

And no im not arguing that long 2's are better or as good as threes in general. I think there are situations where a long 2 can be better but in general its better to take threes vs long 2's.

As far as bibby and webber. I definitely think bibby could of shot 3 or 4 more threes. Not sure about webber though. I think the mid range and post was a much better place for him.

And i agree with you that coaches or more specifically daryl morey was smart enough to realize that shooting more threes vs long twos is a good idea thats why i said i think the number should be in the low 20's appose to 10 or 15 or something.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 09:35 PM

fair enough i watch alot of college ball but if you dont i wont bother going in on it.

And no im not arguing that long 2's are better or as good as threes in general. I think there are situations where a long 2 can be better but in general its better to take threes vs long 2's.

As far as bibby and webber. I definitely think bibby could of shot 3 or 4 more threes. Not sure about webber though. I think the mid range and post was a much better place for him.

And i agree with you that coaches or more specifically daryl morey was smart enough to realize that shooting more threes vs long twos is a good idea thats why i said i think the number should be in the low 20's appose to 10 or 15 or something.

Well, I'm not arguing Webber should have been taking mostly 3's or anything...and I'm of course assuming he could shoot them well enough, but he could really shoot for a player of his size...and took a ton of long 2's...just seems like he should have been shooting some 3's rather than really none based on what we know now.

Like, Webber was a career, in his prime, 52% TS player...I mean...that is just not very good for a player with his skillset. Like, you don't think that is an indictment in kind of how he played and how he was used? I know he was a bad ft shooter, but still. You just wouldn't have franchises do that now...they know too much. Well, actually...some are still kind of stupid...which is pathetic.

Of course long 2's are still good shots at times. In no way should they be removed completely from the game...especially for good players.

I don't know, low 20's seems really low given what we know about the game, but it would depend on the pace likely for me to know if that would make sense.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 09:55 PM

phila used to synergy stats from all time greats. There are like 5 guys who are super efficient in the post for it to be worth it. hakeem who's one of them is at roughly 1.13ppp on postups which is fantastic but can be exceeded by plenty of shooters. Jordan's another one is at 1.17.

Sources: http://i.imgur.com/mI9vr92.png ; https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1467808

Thing about 18-24 is colleges used to shoot a lot more than the nba and 18-24 is only for a 40min game which less possessions. Analytics is just less of a thing in college basketball too and there's a far bigger talent disaprity. Coaches have a bit more job security and can get away with playing teams how they want. Pop for example who hates the 3 i'm guessing would love his teams to take only 15 3's a game but it's just really hard to win that way.

Edit: finally you're wrong about there being no increase. super simplistic analysis but the top ranked team in 2000 in 3's attempted per game was around 27 and lowest was 10. Last year there were multiple teams above 35 and lowest in the country was still like 13. Not nearly the increase you seen in the nba but there's an increase
I dont think i was wrong about college ball. There were only 2 teams that shot more than 35 and the top teams didnt come close to that other than Auburn who shot 30. Actually if you look at the elite 8 there the highest. After that its purdue at 27, duke at 23 and it goes down from there. Alot more of the small schools shoot more threes but most of the big schools have shot under 25 a game for the last 20 plus years. That said i agree the extra 8 minutes would allow for more threes.

And yeah pop would definitely like to shoot less threes but he knows in an era where its really hard to defend the perimeter threes makes sense. Even with that since the rule changes after 04 hes still the most successful coach in the league even though hes never one of the top teams in 3 point attempts.

Ainosterhaspie

12-07-2019, 09:58 PM

I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.
Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 10:07 PM

Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.

I agree with this.

The nuance I'm talking about was more about the conversation of how physical defense would reduce some perimeter penetration which would cause the defense to collapse less...leading to some less open 3's.

I think that is a fair point.

What I don't think is a good or fair point is to pretend like shooting a lot of 3's doesn't make it much harder on the defense. Which has been my main point the entire time.

So when we go back and see the points scored per possession is pretty damn similar...and most of the time the offenses in the past were essentially guarding themselves by not shooting enough 3's...I'm saying we need to tap the brakes on saying defense just sucks now.

If it sucks now...how bad was it when teams taking 5 threes per game were essentially scoring at the same rate?

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 10:17 PM

Well, I'm not arguing Webber should have been taking mostly 3's or anything...and I'm of course assuming he could shoot them well enough, but he could really shoot for a player of his size...and took a ton of long 2's...just seems like he should have been shooting some 3's rather than really none based on what we know now.

Like, Webber was a career, in his prime, 52% TS player...I mean...that is just not very good for a player with his skillset. Like, you don't think that is an indictment in kind of how he played and how he was used? I know he was a bad ft shooter, but still. You just wouldn't have franchises do that now...they know too much. Well, actually...some are still kind of stupid...which is pathetic.

Of course long 2's are still good shots at times. In no way should they be removed completely from the game...especially for good players.

I don't know, low 20's seems really low given what we know about the game, but it would depend on the pace likely for me to know if that would make sense. yeah maybe. With the way webber scored in Sacramento with bibby im not sure. They used him in a lot of pick and rolls or pops from the elbow or would just straight iso him at the foul line elbo area where he would use alot of jabs and fakes. Im not sure how many threes he would of been to hit efficiently that way.

He was a better 3 point shooter later in his career when he wasnt an all star anymore and he was on different teams and they were using him more of a spot up shooter so i guess Sacramento could used more in that role more maybe. Its hard to say really.

And maybe low 20's is a bit low i dont know. I wish they would bring back the old rules just for a season or 2 just to see what it be like. Either way it would be interesting.

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 10:56 PM

Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.
The only problem with this is that if more three equals better than the teams that shoot the most threes should essentially win alot more and they dont. I think the only team to win while shooting more threes than anyone is the 90's rockets. Alot of the other teams that won chips arnt even close to the top three point shooting teams. The rockets the last couple years shoot way more than anyone and they still lost even though they had an mvp player and another atg great player along with a great supporting cast.

And if its that easy why dosnt a college team just come out and shoot 40 plus threes a game and crush the rest of tbe archaic top college teams that still shoot in the the low 20's?

egokiller

12-07-2019, 10:58 PM

Well this conversation took a turn. Once it was understood that the game was more tough and physical in the 90's, the conversation shifted to 2's and 3's. Good read boys!:applause:

Bronbron23

12-07-2019, 11:05 PM

Well this conversation took a turn. Once it was understood that the game was more tough and physical in the 90's, the conversation shifted to 2's and 3's. Good read boys!:applause:
Well thats better than it turning into lebron, kobe or mj debate i guess.

Ainosterhaspie

12-07-2019, 11:28 PM

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 11:40 PM

The only problem with this is that if more three equals better than the teams that shoot the most threes should essentially win alot more and they dont. I think the only team to win while shooting more threes than anyone is the 90's rockets. Alot of the other teams that won chips arnt even close to the top three point shooting teams. The rockets the last couple years shoot way more than anyone and they still lost even though they had an mvp player and another atg great player along with a great supporting cast.

And if its that easy why dosnt a college team just come out and shoot 40 plus threes a game and crush the rest of tbe archaic top college teams that still shoot in the the low 20's?

I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.

DMAVS41

12-07-2019, 11:45 PM

warriorfan

12-07-2019, 11:56 PM

Yea, I think this is mostly fair.

This is why I keep saying we need to zoom out. There just isn't enough of a huge difference in points produced on the average possession in terms of the different eras to warrant the kind of talk about defense today vs some other previous era.

I think that is separate from some of the individual production today due to the higher pace in combination with that. That is a valid point that a lot of these per game numbers are inflated. But in this thread we aren't talking about that. We are talking about defense/offense as a whole.

Especially, again, when we all know that taking a bunch of long 2's like everyone did for most of the last 40 years...was not optimal and made life on the defenses easier...and so I'm still waiting to hear how defense is so terrible now, but when the league was played at the same pace and the league was scoring virtually the same amount of points per possession...while playing objectively worse offense overall...the defense was better.

That just doesn't make sense.

Players practiced and specialized in

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:02 AM

I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.
Na i actually agree with most of that. That point was specifically for what he was saying about offences being archaic and that shooting more threes is the end all and be all. If that was the case than all you would have to do is shoot more threes and you should be able to beat pretty much anyone but as you say its much more complicated than that.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:03 AM

Players practiced and specialized in “playing objectively worse offensive basketball” as you would put it. It is a less optimal style in theory but they did it effectively enough for along time. You are chasing a what came first the chicken or the egg question when it doesn’t apply to this situation, they both dynamically grew together. Defense was obviously tougher and more physical and offenses played a less efficient style of basketball but that was all they knew and they still managed to do it effectively.

Yes, I agree with the bold.

I'm not arguing what you think I am or you are confused.

You saying they played a "less efficient style" is my point...so you agree.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:04 AM

Na i actually agree with most of that. That point was specifically for what he was saying about offences being archaic and that shooting more threes is the end all and be all. If that was the case than all you would have to do is shoot more threes and you should be able to beat pretty much anyone but as you say its much more complicated than that.

That isn't what he means and of course there is way more to basketball than just shooting a lot of 3's.

This seems like just trying to argue about something for no reason.

warriorfan

12-08-2019, 12:07 AM

[/B]

Yes, I agree with the bold.

I'm not arguing what you think I am or you are confused.

You saying they played a "less efficient style" is my point...so you agree.

But to them it wasn

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:08 AM

I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.
And if you ever seen any of my other posts youd know i talk about defence all the time. Im one of the few people who thinks its as important as offence. In our conversations its been centered on straight offence. Even still ive said many times thats theres other factors and that why you cant say for sure

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:09 AM

[QUOTE=warriorfan]But to them it wasn

72-10

12-08-2019, 12:10 AM

the league's scoring records are almost all from the 80s. the league's field goal percentage records are all from the 80s. mostly mid to late 80s. wtf are you quipping about?

lol DMAVS

warriorfan

12-08-2019, 12:12 AM

I completely agree.

I have not once even argued players today are better. I'm saying that how teams play in terms of shooting 3's now is more optimal than taking long 2's like teams did in the past.

In no way am I implying that older players couldn't do it. In fact, older generation players might have been better suited to take more 3's and play within that style...I could see arguments for that and might actually agree.

If they grew up playing that style or gave them enough years to practice and adjust, sure.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:13 AM

And if you ever seen any of my other posts youd know i talk about defence all the time. Im one of the few people who thinks its as important as offence. In our conversations its been centered on straight offence. Even still ive said many times thats theres other factors and that why you cant say for sure

So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense?

Do you understand my confusion?

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:13 AM

the league's scoring records are almost all from the 80s. the league's field goal percentage records are all from the 80s. mostly mid to late 80s. wtf are you quipping about?

lol DMAVS

That actually makes my point.

:confusedshrug:

warriorfan

12-08-2019, 12:15 AM

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:16 AM

[QUOTE=warriorfan]Lebron hand picked an offensive minded team of shooters and chose to not play defense. I don

warriorfan

12-08-2019, 12:17 AM

Can we please not do this.

That isn't, at all, what we are discussing here.

Start a new thread if you want to talk how much more of a negative impact on defense Lebron was in 2018 than James Harden.

Just please don't do it here.

You asked the question, not me. :oldlol:

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:18 AM

You asked the question, not me. :oldlol:

I asked it to someone else...and, again, you are so deranged when it comes to Lebron...that you think you answered the question.

Which you didn't.

Won't respond again on this topic.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:22 AM

That isn't what he means and of course there is way more to basketball than just shooting a lot of 3's.

This seems like just trying to argue about something for no reason.
Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:29 AM

Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.

I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

Think about that logic for a second.

You talk about before the rules changed. Back in 04, for example, 23% of the shots in the league came from 16 ft to the 3 point line...while 19% came at the 3 point line. You really don't think offenses could have just chosen to flip those numbers...or gone over 25% from 3? What makes a 21 foot shot so much easier to get than a 24 footer?

We all know what is was. It was the conventional wisdom that teams that take too many 3's don't win...etc....that was preventing teams from taking those shots. It was the lack of basic math reasoning and analytics.

Are you really surprised...think of how pathetic the NFL has been on when to go for 2...teams literally just figured out that going for two on the first score while down 14 late in games...is a good thing. This should have been figured out the day the 2 point conversion became an option.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:31 AM

So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense?

Do you understand my confusion?
Dude i wasnt pretending. Again it was in response to the other dude who basically said shooting more threes makes a huge difference and that the teams that dont are archaic and dumb. In that scenario which he presented all you would have to do is shoot way more threes and in theory you should win.

As far as the lebron cavs vs rockets giving the warriors a go i honestly dont remember that Exact convo so i cant say for sure. Im assuming it was an offence related topic about something specific so i was leaving the other factors like defence out of it. Or maybe i was just playing stupid to try to prove a point which i can do from time to time even though for the most part i try to keep it real but i really dont Remember tbh.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:38 AM

I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

Think about that logic for a second.
Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not. sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right. You think they could of shot way more.

NBAGOAT

12-08-2019, 12:39 AM

I dont think i was wrong about college ball. There were only 2 teams that shot more than 35 and the top teams didnt come close to that other than Auburn who shot 30. Actually if you look at the elite 8 there the highest. After that its purdue at 27, duke at 23 and it goes down from there. Alot more of the small schools shoot more threes but most of the big schools have shot under 25 a game for the last 20 plus years. That said i agree the extra 8 minutes would allow for more threes.

And yeah pop would definitely like to shoot less threes but he knows in an era where its really hard to defend the perimeter threes makes sense. Even with that since the rule changes after 04 hes still the most successful coach in the league even though hes never one of the top teams in 3 point attempts.

i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.

Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:40 AM

Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right. You think they could of shot way more.

Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:56 AM

i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.

Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.
I dont agree with your college point. Almost All the top schools still shoot in the low 20's. College sports are huge and winning means alot. If all one the coaches had to do was shoot 40 threes instead of 20 to win they woukd of done it by now. Theres some pretty smart coaches in the ncaa but they know with rules how the defensive rules how they are it wont work. That said thy never have shot alot of long 2's they focus mainly on drives post and threes.

As far as last years warriors go im not arguing that teams now should shoot 20 threes. With the defensive rules the way tbey are in the nba on the perimeter teams should shoot a crap ton of threes. What i was saying was if the rules back to pre 2004 the optimal number of threes would drop to the low 20's like the college game and like the nba was before the rule changes. It could probably be even a little higher than that but it would definitely drop.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 01:09 AM

Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?
No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant and again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 01:13 AM

No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.

But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

04 - 23% to 19%
03 - 24% to 18%
02 - 23% to 18%
01 - 23% to 17%

This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?

FireDavidKahn

12-08-2019, 01:16 AM

Micku

12-08-2019, 01:55 AM

Watch the fourth quarter (https://youtu.be/1quhy0MVgsg) when the Spurs eliminated the Lakers 2003. Where's the physicality that is markedly different from a modern playoff game. I often see more handchecking in the modern game than what you see there, not less. Obviously offense was no where near what it is now in that era, but at the same time when I watch stuff like the clip above it's hard for me to accept the common assertion, that physicality explains the difference in eras.

Look at Shaq posting up at 3:50. Defender is using forearm on his back. That is almost always a handcheck in today's game. Shaq spins effortless off for an easy basket. At 7:10 Parker with a drive and kick that's a modern bread and butter play.

At the 12 minute mark you see some tentative hand checking by Bowen on Kobe. Game's over by then. Maybe one of those gets called today, but probably not. I routinely see refs let that stuff go. More likely the offensive player takes a shot when he puts his hand in to try to draw the foul on the arm, but the hand check probably doesn't get called.

But where are the guys who can't get the ball up the court because they have to turn their back to the basket? It's not happening.

I realize that the Pistons were a very physical defense, but when the argument is based on a singular team, it isn't much of an argument. The Lakers are three time defending Champs, the Spurs the title team this year and a great defensive team. Handchecking is almost not existent here. If it was the game changer people claim shouldn't there be a lot more of it? Of course it was actually illegal in this era, though perhaps inconsistently enforced, so maybe that's why we don't see tons of it.

Just one video, and only part of one game at that, but every time I watch old games, the physicality is far less than advertised. Highlight videos dont mean anything. Watch the games. It's really not what people keep telling us it was. They haven't watched these games since then. They remember a handful of anomalous plays and have turned the whole league into those few plays.

This is more leading to a different conversation. But still relevant since it addresses the defense and to the main topic other than the 3 pt shot.

Hand checking was still prevalent there. I haven't watched the 03 series in a looooong time. But another series you could also see is 04 spurs vs lakers. I'm sure you seen it before, but there you can find where players do put their forearm on their hip to dictate and slow the ball handler movement. And Tony Parker did proceed to put the pressure on GP a few times to the point where he had to do a spin move or turn his back.

It happens.

You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM

But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 02:00 AM

But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

04 - 23% to 19%
03 - 24% to 18%
02 - 23% to 18%
01 - 23% to 17%

This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?
Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 02:08 AM

Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.

Those are the numbers.

The first percentage is the percentage of long 2's and the second number is the percentage of 3's.

Percentage is better to use than attempt numbers because the pace of the game impacts the per game stats...while the rate isn't impacted as much by that.

Currently, for reference, only 8% of shots are long 2's and 38% are 3's.

Like I said earlier...I won't pretend to know that optimal ratio...but it absolutely is not more long 2's than 3's...

Micku

12-08-2019, 02:21 AM

Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.

On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted on average. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.

There is another site that tells you the number.
http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx?yr=2007&type=pg

You can see in 07:
the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 02:23 AM

On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.

There is another site that tells you the number.
http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx?yr=2007&type=pg

You can see in 07:
the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.

Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.

Ainosterhaspie

12-08-2019, 03:19 AM

You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM

I don't think any of the moments you mention would be called fouls today. Maybe the handcheck at 29, but the one that might be called a foul I can't really see because a body is in the way. There are two others on that play that wouldn't be called today. What Duncan does at the seven mark is nothing compared to what guys get away with today. When players get into the post they are often bulldozed away from the basket by the defender. Look at the following video from the Lakers/Clippers game this year. Lots of handchecking going uncalled.

https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8.

It is far more common in today's game than people seem to realize. A guy getting handchecked when his back is to the basket is normal. Guys usually won't handcheck when the offensive player faces up, because they're worried about the rip through or shot foul, not the handcheck foul.

But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.

Totally agree that inside spacing was bad then. But I think it was primarily due to offenses being singularly focused on getting inside shots. If that's the only look your offense wants then it makes things easy on the defense. They can just collapse because they're not made to pay for not defending the perimeter. It's an offensive choice that creates the issue, more than it being something defense and physicality in particular forced.

Check out the first quarter of the 2004 Nets/Pistons series (https://youtu.be/E7lZYgXHdQw). A few things jumped out at me from that. Like there's a moment where Billups takes a pull up three early in the possession at 19:30. Coach gets pissed and announcers are talking about how he should try to make something happen inside instead of taking that shot early in the clock.

Basically every ball handler in the league takes that shot now. That in turn opens thing up inside. But they wouldn't take that shot then and it made things easier on defenses.

It's also funny to hear the announcers complaining about flopping. Happens in the first quarter, but I didn't note where.

The spacing inside though except maybe in transition wasn't there. It was a crowded paint. Despite that, both teams were trying to force it in instead of leveraging the power of the three. That's the issue. Offenses just had the wrong mindset.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 06:55 AM

Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.
Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 10:04 AM

Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.

Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 10:28 AM

Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...
I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 10:33 AM

I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.

Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 11:01 AM

Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?
Number of shots.

Ainosterhaspie

12-08-2019, 11:23 AM

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 11:38 AM

I agree there are times where teams should be looking for something other than threes. One example is in the waning seconds when you don't need three points. Let's say you're up two with 30 seconds to go. Now the best shot is probably the highest percentage shot you can get, not the three. I'd rather see a 48% midrange than a 35% three, even though the three yields more points in the long run. (105 per 100 for the three, 96 per 100 for the two) In that instance you don't have enough chances to get value out of that lower percentage about.

Your also see teams who have two on one's at the basket on a breakaway kicking out for threes instead. That's generally the wrong play. 80% from 2 yields more than 50% from three so why kick it out there. Plus you might draw a foul which is even better.
Yeah those are definitely some examples. The other i gave mavs was basically what the article i sent him was about concerning the warriors use of the midrange. In an efforr to reduce the amount of threes the warriors shoot teams focus on crowding the warriors at the three point line in an effort to run them off it into the paint to where the defence is waiting to collapse. In an effort to do this teams are basically gifting them the mid range to which the warriors often oblige. It would be stupud of them to just force a tough contested three when they can get an open midrange. Yeah All things being equal a three is better than a midrange but a contested three is not better than an open midrange. This is one of the reasons why houston cant win a chip. While the warriors have adapted over the years and started taking more midrange shots houston seeks hell bent on proving there point of the more threes the better.

That said i already agreed that more often than not a three is better than a long 2. We just disagree on how many would be smart in era where the rules allow for more physical play which would allow teams to contest threes even better. I think teams would adobt an approach more similar to the warriors and it seems like you and mave would more or less take the houston approach.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 11:55 AM

Number of shots.

Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 12:09 PM

Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.
Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 12:14 PM

Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.

So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 05:05 PM

So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?
Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.

Manny98

12-08-2019, 05:09 PM

How was 5"2 120 pounds Mugsey Bogue's able to average a double double in such a physical era :oldlol:

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 05:22 PM

Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.

Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's?????

Bronbron23

12-08-2019, 05:47 PM

Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's????? ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.

DMAVS41

12-08-2019, 05:54 PM

ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.

No, I'm not saying that 3's are always better. That would be an absurd opinion.

What I'm saying...and have been saying...is that teams should not be taking more long 2's than 3's...on the whole.

In a specific game or something? Sure, I could think of circumstances that would make that actually better.

But on the whole in terms of the league averages? Nah, taking more long 2's was stupid.

That is what I'm arguing...and very clearly for most of the last 40 years...teams did not have this figured out...and it made the life of defenses easier than it is now.

And then when you follow that thinking through...you realize that most defenses in the past were giving up roughly the same amount of points per possession (outside of 98-04) and some other years while facing offenses easier to guard.

So, like I said from the jump, when I hear defenses suck now...I need to know exactly what that relative comparison is to. Because it sure as hell isn't the 80's or early 90's...when teams were scoring at a very similar rate despite taking well below the optimal amount of 3's...and were taking way too many long 2's.

That was where this started.

Micku

12-15-2019, 03:40 PM

I don't think any of the moments you mention would be called fouls today. Maybe the handcheck at 29, but the one that might be called a foul I can't really see because a body is in the way. There are two others on that play that wouldn't be called today. What Duncan does at the seven mark is nothing compared to what guys get away with today. When players get into the post they are often bulldozed away from the basket by the defender. Look at the following video from the Lakers/Clippers game this year. Lots of handchecking going uncalled.

https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8.

It is far more common in today's game than people seem to realize. A guy getting handchecked when his back is to the basket is normal. Guys usually won't handcheck when the offensive player faces up, because they're worried about the rip through or shot foul, not the handcheck foul.

Totally agree that inside spacing was bad then. But I think it was primarily due to offenses being singularly focused on getting inside shots. If that's the only look your offense wants then it makes things easy on the defense. They can just collapse because they're not made to pay for not defending the perimeter. It's an offensive choice that creates the issue, more than it being something defense and physicality in particular forced.

Check out the first quarter of the 2004 Nets/Pistons series (https://youtu.be/E7lZYgXHdQw). A few things jumped out at me from that. Like there's a moment where Billups takes a pull up three early in the possession at 19:30. Coach gets pissed and announcers are talking about how he should try to make something happen inside instead of taking that shot early in the clock.

Basically every ball handler in the league takes that shot now. That in turn opens thing up inside. But they wouldn't take that shot then and it made things easier on defenses.

It's also funny to hear the announcers complaining about flopping. Happens in the first quarter, but I didn't note where.

The spacing inside though except maybe in transition wasn't there. It was a crowded paint. Despite that, both teams were trying to force it in instead of leveraging the power of the three. That's the issue. Offenses just had the wrong mindset.

That clippers vs Laker game! Yeah, that's true. It happens sometimes. It happens more in the playoffs than it does in the regular season with the hand checking. It depends at the leisure of the refs. But it's a foul. And sometimes they call it. Players and commentators would say something like "They are letting them play tonight" or whatever. Sometimes they don't call defensive 3 sec unless a player or coach comment on it.

But it's a foul. At one hand, you'll let the players play on the other, you'll get fouls like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-TFrAMIoE

When LeBron tries to drive to the rim, PJ Tucker is all over him. Stopping his momentum with the elbow to the hip and everything. He looks a the ref and ask for the foul cuz James Harden and CP3 were getting that. But similar to Shaq, the refs would treat LeBron differently. And Harden and CP3 are better at selling it. They were articles on it, on the game, on James Harden too. But everyone knows the inconsistency of the refs.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lebron-james-lakers-rockets-no-hands-defense-james-harden-video

It's almost a little unfair comparison because of the RS vs playoff games. Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m28s
the handchecking on MJ should be a foul called today.

And here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m40s
a similar play where Harden got "tripped" up. But the refs made a mistake, and you see that play go either way. A foul or no foul.

But there was a 70s game where some teams were doing full pressure and hand checking at the hip, and I was shocked. Like even though the 80s and early 90s could kind'a do that, it wasn't done normally. They usually don't bother until they get inside the 3pt line. And if you are a good shooter. Or if they really try to force a turnover.

But the point is, yeah. You'll still find some hand checking in today's game. It depends on how the refs call it. It's the same throughout basketball life. It just with nowadays, there are more rules to follow when it comes to contact. And the freedom of movement thing, eliminates some of the tricks players could do of defending screens. They can't really hold the screener or hold anybody in general I think. Sometimes the refs may not call it or miss it, but if they see it and they choose to call it, then it's a foul. And it wasn't like two years ago?

But me and you both agree that the lack of spacing is the main thing.

Airupthere

12-15-2019, 05:18 PM

Micku

12-15-2019, 07:10 PM

I dont see the need to debate that the league was more physical in the 80s-90s. The game was played at a shorter range, handchecking and harder fouls were allowed compared to today. This is not necessarily a knock on todays game. The game changed, it called for a different brand of gameplay. Less physicality, more outside shooting, and more space. Why does this generation have to be best at everything and can not be criticized or commented on in any way?

Game back then presented its own challenges players then, as much as the game now presents challenges to the players now. Was is jerry wests fault that he played in an eta where they could only palm the ball? Is there any doubt that if jerry west were born today he would be able to play with better handles than what he had in the 60s?

What would be worth noting is how much does one great player stand out from his peers in his era, and how he is able to impact the game.

It's the comparison from one era to another. Doc Rivers said to Rondo one time that he would have a tougher time back then than he does now. Wilt told MJ one time that the league changed and it's easier for MJ now than it was back then, where they made to rules to slow down from Wilt to dominate.

A few commentators now complain about how certain foul calls are called today that simple "touch" fouls that weren't called back in their day.

For us, we sometimes debate about the stats, and whatever or not they are impressive given the rules change or not.

It's natural it seems to compare. But the players themselves are not at fault. And the eras are too different to compare. The playstyles, the rules, pacing, the coaching. As you said, it's better to acknowledge which player stands out the most out of the era. It does seem that superstars could adapt, no matter the rules, but to compare stats across eras I feel like is pretty tough.