Mitchell just had the 3rd highest scoring playoff game in history.

[Kblaze8855]

Someone is coming for that 63 this season. Soon. Harden or Dame....maybe a dark horse guard having a good shooting night.

If Dame has a close OT game that might do it. Book might have made a run too.

Who do you have as the guy to watch if not Dame?

This league is making these games too normal. Playoffs....so high minutes....this soft ass league and the added high pace? Donovan went 6-15 from 3. 8-15 and he would have tied the record. It’s gotta be coming....right?


Who drops 66?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Caught some of the game today. Mitchell hit a few tough shots. And on decent contests, but you're not lying.

First Dame's killer week and now this game. Players are scoring like they're shooting around in their backyard.

[NBAGOAT]

harden will get doubled too much. i'll say it wont happen this year

[Gudo]

Only a matter time. Could be Dame, Harden, KD if he were playing.

[Gougou]

That is very impressive tbh.

[Roundball_Rock]

Probably Harden with the bubble being the best bet for it. Bubble scoring is sky high. ESPN ran a graphic a few days ago that said Kawhi was averaging 29.4 PPG--and that ranked "only" 7th in the bubble. :lol

If it doesn't happen in the bubble it likely will happen in the next 3-4 years. Scoring is just much higher and easier to rack up 63 while shooting 3's (MJ didn't even attempt a three in his 63 point game for some context).

[Smoke117]

Will it really matter? We all know it's easier to score now than past eras. When context is taking into account it's hard to care if anyone beats the 63 point high.

[imdaman99]

I love Mitchell but this ain't real basketball.

[Shogon]

Meaningless.

Did it in a loss, and he choked the game away. And yes, I saw how many consecutive points he scored for his team there. Also part of the problem, froze teammates out a bit, even if unintentionally.

Donovan Mitchell is a fat kid itching to break out of a healthy lifestyle. As long as he stays in the league he'll be alright but that dude is going to blimp when he retires. Hey, whatever.

Who the **** gets an 8 second violation with 2 minutes left in a close game? Nuggets get the ball back and I think Murray or someone promptly drained a 3, lol.

I flat out do not respect the scoring accolades of the perimeters players of today because of the rule changes. At least... not in the sense that it's fair to compare them to things of the past, because it isn't. They practically get escorted to the basket.

[L8krH8tr]

And they still lost! Nuggets should sweep them

[NBAGOAT]

Probably Harden with the bubble being the best bet for it. Bubble scoring is sky high. ESPN ran a graphic a few days ago that said Kawhi was averaging 29.4 PPG--and that ranked "only" 7th in the bubble. :lol

If it doesn't happen in the bubble it likely will happen in the next 3-4 years. Scoring is just much higher and easier to rack up 63 while shooting 3's (MJ didn't even attempt a three in his 63 point game for some context).

haha kawhi's a good answer. I'll go with him since teams cant afford to double him

[tpols]

I think lack of crowd is playing into it. There's no hostile adversity or pressure. Everybody is just letting it rip in rhythm.

[Ghost1]

Probably Harden with the bubble being the best bet for it. Bubble scoring is sky high. ESPN ran a graphic a few days ago that said Kawhi was averaging 29.4 PPG--and that ranked "only" 7th in the bubble. :lol

If it doesn't happen in the bubble it likely will happen in the next 3-4 years. Scoring is just much higher and easier to rack up 63 while shooting 3's (MJ didn't even attempt a three in his 63 point game for some context).

small sample size... some players have these insane numbers in november and cool off later in the season

[Shogon]

I think lack of crowd is playing into it. There's no hostile adversity or pressure. Everybody is just letting it rip in rhythm.

For sure. Far less psychological pressure. Which honestly, may not be a bad thing.

I'm torn.

I do wish the crowds were there because, while this may not be rational on my part, it makes for a seemingly more compelling product.

However, I also think I'd rather see what these guys are capable of from a pure basketball standpoint, rather than having their stress resistance to crowd noise being tested also... because that's not actually basketball. It's just a psychological thing that's unrelated the actual game itself.

Eh, I dunno.

[Roundball_Rock]

haha kawhi's a good answer. I'll go with him since teams cant afford to double him

Another good choice. Luka, Giannis are other strong possibilities in addition to Harden and Kawhi.

Of course watch it wind up being someone like TJ Warren. :lol

[Kblaze8855]

Caught some of the game today. Mitchell hit a few tough shots. And on decent contests, but you're not lying.

First Dame's killer week and now this game. Players are scoring like they're shooting around in their backyard.


Yea I’m not gonna say they don’t have to be monster talents to have these games even in the easier league we have. They are all nasty shot makers. But the few virtual freebies make all the difference between a 45 point and 55 point game.

Every era had freebies but they are a lot easier to manufacture without even being in the open floor right now. Too many shooters. Too much space to defend. Everyone has to work and when they don’t you just moonwalk through the midrange and get to the basket or take practice threes.

I respect the effort it takes to play good team D now but too many people don’t buy in.

[NBAGOAT]

Another good choice. Luka, Giannis are other strong possibilities in addition to Harden and Kawhi.

Of course watch it wind up being someone like TJ Warren. :lol

main thing is i dont know if any team could afford to heavily trap and double kawhi. harden especially with westbrook out will see plenty, lillard mitchell types dont have the firepower around them to feast on isos

[LoneyROY7]

main thing is i dont know if any team could afford to heavily trap and double kawhi. harden especially with westbrook out will see plenty, lillard mitchell types dont have the firepower around them to feast on isos

Kawhi gonna score 20 more than his current career high?

[tpols]

They practically get escorted to the basket.

A lot of that IMO is due to today's mastering of the PnR and the current spacing bigs can provide. Back in the day, Stockton and Malone were standouts for their hyper efficient PnR offense, but in this era it is a non stop practice. The Bulls didn't spam PnR with MJ or Pippen. 80s Celtics and Lakers didn't spam PnR. Kobe Shaq or Kobe Pau didn't spam PnR. Hakeem's rockets didn't spam PnR. Most teams used to work out of the post and mismatches which lends itself more difficult to get to the hoop. It is the evolution of basketball to go more pick and roll/pop heavy. It opens so much shit up.

[NBAGOAT]

Kawhi gonna score 20 more than his current career high?

why not? dude's going play 40+min some games. Who the hell on dallas is going guard kawhi for example

[Shogon]

A lot of that IMO is due to today's mastering of the PnR and the spacing bigs can provide nowadays. Back in the day, Stockton and Malone were standoiuts for their hyper efficient PnR offense, but in this era it is a non stop practice. The Bulls didn't spam PnR with MJ or Pippen. 80s Celtics and Lakers didn't spam PnR. Kobe Shaq or Kobe Pau didn't spam PnR. Hakeem's rockets didn't spam PnR. Most teams used to work out of the post and mismatches. It is the evolution of basketball to go more pick and roll heavy. It opens so much shit up.

It definitely is, four guys standing behind the three point line while one goes for the basket can't be understated... but it's also in part because big men aren't allowed to camp in the paint on the defensive end as much any more and it's also because perimeter players aren't allowed to hand check.

It's very, very difficult to play clean, effective defense on the perimeter now. And it's that way by design, because the league desperately wanted to find their next darling after MJ retired. They watered down their product to the people that watch the game but made it more fun for everyone else.

[Gougou]

I think lack of crowd is playing into it. There's no hostile adversity or pressure. Everybody is just letting it rip in rhythm.

Yeah also less media, camera flashing light and special effect, noise etc. Players can focus on a better.

[LoneyROY7]

why not? dude's going play 40+min some games. Who the hell on dallas is going guard kawhi for example

Kawhi has yet to show that crazy spurtability in his game. He has 5 career 40+ point games. For reference, Harden has 60 40+ point games in the last 3 seasons.

[NBAGOAT]

Kawhi has yet to show that crazy spurtability in his game. He has 5 career 40+ point games. For reference, Harden has 60 40+ point games in the last 3 seasons.

harden's easily the most capable but his roster isnt good enough this year to divert enough defensive attention. If no one does it this year we'll see with hou's roster

[Roundball_Rock]

main thing is i dont know if any team could afford to heavily trap and double kawhi. harden especially with westbrook out will see plenty, lillard mitchell types dont have the firepower around them to feast on isos

True but with Westbrook out he will get insane usage.

[LoneyROY7]

I could see Kawhi getting a 50 piece or something against Dallas...I just think 65 might be a bit much lol.

[tpols]

but it's also in part because big men aren't allowed to camp in the paint on the defensive end as much any more

Thats mostly due to spacing C's can provide today offensively. Gobert has to guard Jokic... he cant sink on Murray on a screen and play for the drive, because Jokic will wet the pick and pop 3 and dagger them. Most centers back in the day couldn't, or wouldn't due to philosophical reasons (bad shot) shoot 3's. 15-18 feet was their max range on average so rim protectors could afford to sink to the rim and guard it better.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kawhi has yet to show that crazy spurtability in his game. He has 5 career 40+ point games. For reference, Harden has 60 40+ point games in the last 3 seasons.

60 games scoring 40+ and he only has 1 playoff run averaging over 28PPG. That's a Wilt like playoff drop.

We all know in playoffs Kawhi has the deadly mid range game that will never fade. While Harden's going to be on that step back 3 shit that will not fall at the end of grinding series.

[LoneyROY7]

60 games scoring 40+ and he only has 1 playoff run averaging over 28PPG. That's a Wilt like playoff drop.

We all know in playoffs Kawhi has the deadly mid range game that will never fade. While Harden's going to be on that step back 3 shit that will not fall at the end of grinding series.

I knew you would come in butt-hurt after that. :oldlol:

I like Kawhi and respect his ability. All I did was state a fact. He has 5 career 40+ point games.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Good points by all of you.

Really is a combination of everything. That part about the crowd hit an accord, though. You know for a fact some of these dudes get stage fright. I mean, its a legit thing. From amped crowd noise, to boos and the heckling. The sheer 'one-sidedness' of home court. It aint basketball related but it definitely matters.

You know top seeds fretted when realizing the regular-season actually didn't matter much.

[Xiao Yao You]

Thats mostly due to spacing C's can provide today offensively. Gobert has to guard Jokic... he cant sink on Murray on a screen and play for the drive, because Jokic will wet the pick and pop 3 and dagger them. Most centers back in the day couldn't, or wouldn't due to philosophical reasons (bad shot) shoot 3's. 15 feet was their max range on average so rim protectors could afford to sink to the rim and guard it better.

Someone gets it! One guy can't always stop two good players though Gobert does it a lot more than anyone

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I knew you would come in butt-hurt after that. :oldlol:

I like Kawhi and respect his ability. All I did was state a fact. He has 5 career 40+ point games.

How many 40 point playoff games do both guys have?

[NBAGOAT]

True but with Westbrook out he will get insane usage.

i dont think it be enough even. teams are fine with westbrook driving and kicking to a role guy. everyone on hou can shoot but no one besides mclemore(might be unplayable due to his defense) can shoot well besides pj at the left corner.

[LoneyROY7]

How many 40 point playoff games do both guys have?

Harden has 8 40+ point games in the playoffs. I don't know about Kawhi.

[NBAGOAT]

Someone gets it! One guy can't always stop two good players though Gobert does it a lot more than anyone

draymond does it more than anyone with his mobility yet doesnt get beat by bigger guys. It's crazy often he blew up hou's pnr with harden or cp3.

[ArbitraryWater]

haha kawhi's a good answer. I'll go with him since teams cant afford to double him

Kawhi will not come close to 45 dawg. Just not that high octane. More consistent scorer, but doesnt have that hot streak.

[Roundball_Rock]

The highest eFG% seasons in NBA history: 1) 20' (53%) 2) 19' (52%) 3) 18' (52%) 4) 17' (51%) 5) 16' (50%)

This speaks for itself. The question is: is there any scoring level that would cause the NBA to intervene? It is unlikely--fans love scoring--but at some point it would be so ridiculous the NBA would have to do something. Whether that is teams averaging 120, 130, 140, or 150 there has to be some theoretical point where the NBA would have to step in and make changes to give defenses a chance.

[Xiao Yao You]

draymond does it more than anyone with his mobility yet doesnt get beat by bigger guys. It's crazy often he blew up hou's pnr with harden or cp3.

He's only as good as the players around him. Was unable to carry the Warriors like Gobert has the Jazz

[tpols]

The highest eFG% seasons in NBA history: 1) 20' (53%) 2) 19' (52%) 3) 18' (52%) 4) 17' (51%) 5) 16' (50%)

This speaks for itself.

Yup... turns out a team wide effort to hit a shot worth 50% more points pays off.

The adders of the 3 pt line could've never imagined how good everybody would get at it. It used to be a taboo shot.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

The highest eFG% seasons in NBA history: 1) 20' (53%) 2) 19' (52%) 3) 18' (52%) 4) 17' (51%) 5) 16' (50%)

This speaks for itself. The question is: is there any scoring level that would cause the NBA to intervene? It is unlikely--fans love scoring--but at some point it would be so ridiculous the NBA would have to do something. Whether that is teams averaging 120, 130, or 140 there has to be some theoretical point where the NBA would have to step in and make changes to give defenses a chance.

Can we point that to just bad defense though? The game has eliminated or disguised the slow big man that can't shoot, so efficiency has increased.

Efficiency sucked in the 1960s but that doesn't mean every defender out there was Ron Artest.

[HylianNightmare]

Will it really matter? We all know it's easier to score now than past eras. When context is taking into account it's hard to care if anyone beats the 63 point high.

Only a matter of time before we are just considered old dudes holding onto the past

[NBAGOAT]

Yup... turns out a team wide effort to hit a shot worth 50% more points pays off.

The adders of the 3 pt line could've never imagined how good everybody would get at it. It used to be a taboo shot.

it's like nfl teams figuring out passing is just going get more yards to play. the 04 contact rules arent only reason teams started passing more and more. You run the ball in short yard situations, end of game situations to run out the clock, and for strategic diversity so teams cant sell out vs the pass.

College teams figured out sooner passing was the way to score like college basketball teams figured out 3's were valuable earlier and there werent as drastic rule changes in either college sports

[NBAGOAT]

He's only as good as the players around him. Was unable to carry the Warriors like Gobert has the Jazz

he was, he just started coasting during the Rs because gs was so talented and didnt even need home court to win in the playoffs. Gobert will one day too already saw effort go down a little this year.

[tpols]

it's like nfl teams figuring out passing is just going get more yards to play. the 04 contact rules arent only reason teams started passing more and more. You run the ball in short yard situations, end of game situations to run out the clock, and for strategic diversity so teams cant sell out vs the pass.

College teams figured out sooner passing was the way to score like college basketball teams figured out 3's were valuable earlier and there werent as drastic rule changes in either college sports

Yup... NFL teams used to primarily "run" the ball. (aka post) Now they pass. (shoot)

Sports are becoming less bully ball smash opponents out the way, and more skill based. The way it should be imo. If I want to watch pure force I'll tune it for some MMA. But even then skilled wrestlers and BJJ tacticians usually dominate the McGregor striker types that rely on brute force and athleticism.

[Roundball_Rock]

Can we point that to just bad defense though? The game has eliminated or disguised the slow big man that can't shoot, so efficiency has increased.

Losing those big men would reduce efficiency. These were post players taking bunny shots from a couple feet away or dunking. Maybe someone of them took an occasional mid-range shot to diversify but most of their work was in the post.

The real difference in efficiency is greater but high efficiency big men baked into the league average (who most top scorers were in the past) obscures the boost perimeter stars had (who are the top scorers today of course) compared to those from previous eras.

Just look at how many open shots these guys get today. At times it looks like glorified shooting practice. :lol

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Harden has 8 40+ point games in the playoffs. I don't know about Kawhi.

And 0 finals appearances. That should tell you right there...

Consistency > random scoring outbursts

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Losing those big men would reduce efficiency. These were post players taking bunny shots from a couple feet away or dunking. Maybe someone of them took an occasional mid-range shot to diversify but most of their work was in the post.

The real difference in efficiency is greater but high efficiency big men baked into the league average (who most top scorers were in the past) obscures the boost perimeter stars had (who are the top scorers today of course) compared to those from previous eras.

Just look at how many open shots these guys get today. At times it looks like glorified shooting practice. :lol

Spacing is why the offense opens up. Now what does a big man that I described do? They clog up the lanes and ruin spacing, which ultimately leads to worse efficiency.

[Marchesk]

Yup... turns out a team wide effort to hit a shot worth 50% more points pays off.

The adders of the 3 pt line could've never imagined how good everybody would get at it. It used to be a taboo shot.

John Wooden was opposed to both the dunk and the three point shot. Two things it turns out fans love the most, but two things that at times overshadow the rest of the game.

[3ball]

Someone is coming for that 63 this season. Soon. Harden or Dame....maybe a dark horse guard having a good shooting night.

If Dame has a close OT game that might do it. Book might have made a run too.

Who do you have as the guy to watch if not Dame?

This league is making these games too normal. Playoffs....so high minutes....this soft ass league and the added high pace? Donovan went 6-15 from 3. 8-15 and he would have tied the record. It’s gotta be coming....right?


Who drops 66?

But it won't be against a goat team, which takes some shine off...

Plus it's easier to get big numbers in a closed-gym scrimmage-style than with the pressure of 20k fans

[DMAVS41]

Can we point that to just bad defense though? The game has eliminated or disguised the slow big man that can't shoot, so efficiency has increased.

Efficiency sucked in the 1960s but that doesn't mean every defender out there was Ron Artest.

Right.

Of course it isn't just bad defense now. Yes, there are some rules that make life easier on offense today than in the past, but teams in the past were far easier to guard. Imagine how good defense could be, even with the softer rules currently, if teams were taking roughly 7 threes a game like they did a long time ago. At times, even less...

Truth is pretty simple like some are saying...teams finally figured out how idiotic it was not take a lot of shots that are worth 50% more points...and it has made life hell for defense ever since.

[tpols]

John Wooden was opposed to both the dunk and the three point shot. Two things it turns out fans love the most, but two things that at times overshadow the rest of the game.

Just another example of people being stuck in their ways. Every old timer thinks their era did it best and it's impossible the current generation did it better. Literally throughout history for everything ever. They are soft. We are tough! These kids nowadays I tell ya! They can't accept objective reality.

[Kblaze8855]

Just another example of people being stuck in their ways. Every old timer thinks their era did it best and it's impossible the current generation did it better. Literally throughout history for everything ever. They are soft. We are tough! These kids nowadays I tell ya! They can't accept objective reality.

It’s not really objective when the people talking are in favor of their era either. Nobody is objective.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Right.

Of course it isn't just bad defense now. Yes, there are some rules that make life easier on offense today than in the past, but teams in the past were far easier to guard. Imagine how good defense could be, even with the softer rules currently, if teams were taking roughly 7 threes a game like they did a long time ago. At times, even less...

Truth is pretty simple like some are saying...teams finally figured out how idiotic it was not take a lot of shots that are worth 50% more points...and it has made life hell for defense ever since.

Yeah and considering the offense is harder to defend today then ever before? Elite defenders like Kawhi or Giannis should get even more credit then elite defenders in the past.

If you're going to discredit defense today in general, the actual elite defenders like Kawhi/Giannis should be getting twice the credit. They are defending the most efficient offenses.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

But it won't be against a goat team, which takes some shine off...

Plus it's easier to get big numbers in a closed-gym scrimmage-style than with the pressure of 20k fans

But some players play a lot better when fans are cheering them at home vs an empty gym. So it balances out at the end.

[DMAVS41]

It’s not really objective when the people talking are in favor of their era either. Nobody is objective.

True, nobody can be perfectly objective and we are all biased.

However, I don't think that is what he was saying. He was simply saying that shooting around, I don't know, 5 threes a game or something...is objectively not as good as taking more given the rules of basketball.

[tpols]

It’s not really objective when the people talking are in favor of their era either. Nobody is objective.

This isn't my era. Watched far more ball before the 3 pt explosion.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Just another example of people being stuck in their ways. Every old timer thinks their era did it best and it's impossible the current generation did it better. Literally throughout history for everything ever. They are soft. We are tough! These kids nowadays I tell ya! They can't accept objective reality.

Yeah, but you talk like weakass rules aren't even a factor. Like freedom of movement doesn't exist.

I don't know how much stuff like that matters, but it has to be considered.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the actual players.


I think we're more athletic. We play a different kind of basketball and I think freedom of movement helps that athleticism."


I understand that you’re changing the direction of the player, but right now it’s overboard a little bit. I mean, it’s been a point of emphasis, but you’re trying to get – you can’t touch guys. Guys are about to run, and basketball is a physical game. That’s what we lift weights for, right?

“If you take the physical nature away from it, then – I mean obviously we have to adapt. It’s going to take some time. And if that’s the rule, then we’ve got to find a way to do it.”

Rubio and Rudy Gay in 2020.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, but you talk like weakass rules aren't even a factor. Like freedom of movement doesn't exist.

I don't how much stuff that matters, but it has to be considered.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the actual players.





Rubio and Rudy G in 2020.

Of course they matter, but it is a bit overblown.

Hell, just compare the league average offensive ratings throughout history...they aren't that different depending on which years you compare...and we all know the offenses are significantly harder to guard today because of the 3.

Overall, defenses are better today than most people give them credit for.

[Axe]

I knew you would come in butt-hurt after that. :oldlol:

I like Kawhi and respect his ability. All I did was state a fact. He has 5 career 40+ point games.
Kawhi never had to score over 40 points often because he usually had greater teammates, especially in the playoffs. I only said this tho since the main focus is to keep winning.

But it's obvious hbq is insecure about that fact that kawhi had way more less of them compared to harden.

[NBAGOAT]

Yeah, but you talk like weakass rules aren't even a factor. Like freedom of movement doesn't exist.

I don't how much stuff that matters, but it has to be considered.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the actual players.





Rubio and Rudy G in 2020.

good points but on the other hand we still may not be at an optimal 3pt rate :lol. for the majority of basketball's history, coaches and players underused it. I still remember a lowe article in 2013 about a raptors tracking system that tracked plays live and could calculate by the second ev if a guy took a shot accounting for his own accuracy and how close defender was and how much time left on shot clock etc. one of the general conclusions they had was even sub 35% 3pt shooters should be jacking up more contested 3's. you often just wont get a better ev shot off in a possession.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Of course they matter, but it is a bit overblown.

Hell, just compare the league average offensive ratings throughout history...they aren't that different depending on which years you compare...and we all know the offenses are significantly harder to guard today because of the 3.

Overall, defenses are better today than most people give them credit for.

But they're not "overblown" at all. The rules play a significant role. How much, I can't say for sure.

Here's another 2020 quote. This time from Indiana's coach, Nate McMillan


I think the league is going to take advantage of these rules. Speed, being able to recover and close out without using your hands? You can't touch a guy. You better be able to get down into a stance and guard it. That's hard to do.

:confusedshrug:

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, but you talk like weakass rules aren't even a factor. Like freedom of movement doesn't exist.

I don't know how much stuff like that matters, but it has to be considered.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the actual players.





Rubio and Rudy Gay in 2020.

Yup, and none of this is a secret. The rules were changed to goose scoring--all this is by design. They just succeeded more than the NBA envisioned when this was set in motion about 15 years ago.

The three point theory was tested in real time when the NBA shortened the line for three years. Attempts were 7.6, 9.0, 9.9 from 1992-1994 respectively before the change. After the change it jumped to 15.3 in 95', 16.0 in 96', 16.8 in 97'. Did scoring go up? Nope, it actually went down as the number of threes skyrocketed. It was 105.3 in 92' and down to 96.9 by 97'.

NBA scoring 1992-1994: 105.3, 105.3, 101.5
NBA scoring 1995-1997: 101.4, 99.5, 96.9

Scoring went down consistently from the end of the 80's through the early 00's. Then magically scoring went up 4 PPG in 05' alone (especially so for perimeter stars). I wonder why? :oldlol:

[3ball]

.
2020 Denver... 111.0 drtg.. 16th.. 1.0 worse than league avg.. 117 drtg in 57-pt gm

1986 Boston... 102.6 drtg... 1st... 5.0 better than league avg... 114 drtg in 63-pt game

[DMAVS41]

But they're not "overblown" at all. They rules play a significant role. How much, I can't say for sure.

Here's another 2020 quote. This time from Indiana's coach, Nate McMillan;



:confusedshrug:

Well...

In 1993, teams averaged 9 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 108

In 2020, teams averaged 34 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 110.6


Again, it depends on exactly which era you are talking about, but I mean...we really gonna claim the defense is just horrible today compared to 93 for example? Like, again, imagine how much easier defense is when your opponent takes only 9 threes a game.

[DMAVS41]

Yup, and none of this is a secret. The rules were changed to goose scoring--all this is by design. They just succeeded more than the NBA envisioned when this was set in motion about 15 years ago.

The three point theory was tested in real time when the NBA shortened the line for three years. Attempts were 7.6, 9.0, 9.9 from 1992-1994 respectively before the change. After the change it jumped to 15.3 in 95', 16.0 in 96', 16.8 in 97'. Did scoring go up? Nope, it actually went down as the number of threes skyrocketed. It was 105.3 in 92' and down to 96.9 by 97'.

NBA scoring 1992-1994: 105.3, 105.3, 101.5
NBA scoring 1995-1997: 101.4, 99.5, 96.9

Scoring went down consistently from the end of the 80's through the early 00's. Then magically scoring went up 4 PPG in 05' alone (especially so for perimeter stars). I wonder why? :oldlol:

The offensive rating, which is what you should be using, in 2005 (the year you reference) was 106. The offensive rating in 1993 was 108.

So..............

[NBAGOAT]

Yup, and none of this is a secret. The rules were changed to goose scoring--all this is by design. They just succeeded more than the NBA envisioned when this was set in motion about 15 years ago.

The three point theory was tested in real time when the NBA shortened the line for three years. Attempts were 7.6, 9.0, 9.9 from 1992-1994 respectively before the change. After the change it jumped to 15.3 in 95', 16.0 in 96', 16.8 in 97'. Did scoring go up? Nope, it actually went down as the number of threes skyrocketed. It was 105.3 in 92' and down to 96.9 by 97'.

NBA scoring 1992-1994: 105.3, 105.3, 101.5
NBA scoring 1995-1997: 101.4, 99.5, 96.9

Scoring went down consistently from the end of the 80's through the early 00's. Then magically scoring went up 4 PPG in 05' alone (especially so for perimeter stars). I wonder why? :oldlol:

that's because pace went down from the 80s to 90s. ortg went down because teams started emphasizing going back on defense a bit more than crashing for boards. tht's why 80s ortgs are good along with foul rate. There was a time a few years ago when coaches completely didnt believe in oreb because they though the tradeoff for worse transition defense wasnt worth and it and there were a few studies showing no correlation between oreb% and winning. That might reverse since other studies have come out showing oreb% might not hurt your defense but seems like coaches value spacing from their bigs more for now.

[Lebron23]

Reminded of Iverson when he scored 55 points vs the Hornets

[HBK_Kliq_2]

The offensive rating, which is what you should be using, in 2005 (the year you reference) was 106. The offensive rating in 1993 was 108.

So..............

And Mavs just had the best offensive rating of all time. You think Rick plays a 90s player like Boban? Hell no

[juju151111]

Why is this an argument when the nba stated themselves they trying to make people score more cause they think thats more entertainment. They said it themselves. They been trying to implement rules for 20 years now to make little guards more efficient, faster pace, fouls on 3s etc... This us like Arguing the NFL hasn't beentrying to make scoring go up. They literally make WRs run free and put up absurd stats with QBs today.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pace was going down consistently--and then started going up in 05' and never looked back. It seems all roads lead to the 05' season. Anything happen that year?


The offensive rating, which is what you should be using, in 2005 (the year you reference) was 106

106.1--it was 102.9 the year before. That has to be a record one year spike. I wonder why...

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kawhi never had to score over 40 points often because he usually had greater teammates, especially in the playoffs. I only said this tho since the main focus is to keep winning.

But it's obvious hbq is insecure about that fact that kawhi had way more less of them compared to harden.

Kawhi has never played a playoff game with a better teammate then Chris Paul. He had 2 years with him.

[NBAGOAT]

Well...

In 1993, teams averaged 9 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 108

In 2020, teams averaged 34 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 110.6


Again, it depends on exactly which era you are talking about, but I mean...we really gonna claim the defense is just horrible today compared to 93 for example? Like, again, imagine how much easier defense is when your opponent takes only 9 threes a game.

yea foul rate and oreb are way down. teams focus hard on dreb and offenses dont crash the boards. it doesnt seem that way in the bubble but teams dont foul just to foul. It's usually just putting your guy in foul trouble for a 1.5ppp; average ft% is 77. Old school thinking was you always foul to prevent a layup but guys miss layups a small percentage of time so putting a guy in foul trouble might not even be worth it.

[juju151111]

Pace was going down consistently--and then started going up in 05' and never looked back. It seems all roads lead to the 05' season. Anything happen that year?



106.1--it was 102.9 the year before. That has to be a record one year spike. I wonder why...

They started emphasis on fouls and most superstars stats skyrocketed in 05-06. After that point they just consistently change rules to make game faster. Like it going from 24 seconds to 14 seconds after offensive rebounds. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/37892219

You also basically can't guard 3 point shooters off screens any more because all they have to do is stop in the middle of going around the screen then shoot. Auto foul.

[NBAGOAT]

They started emphasis on fouls and most superstars stats skyrocketed in 05-06. After that point they just consistently change rules to make game faster. Like it going from 24 seconds to 14 seconds after offensive rebounds. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/37892219

You also basically can't guard 3 point shooters off screens any more because all they have to do is stop in the middle of going around the screen then shoot. Auto foul.

guys just abuse foul drawing more though yes refs call it tighter too. reggie got a ton of those where he just flail and shoot when he felt contact, putting his leg out to initiate contact on a 3 etc. It's due to the players too and they have made rules that went the other way. stopped the rip through from being automatic foul shots, kicking out your leg on jumpshots is an offensive foul now.

[CelticBaller]

it should be easier for shooters to get hot in an empty court tbh, it's basically a gym

[DMAVS41]

Pace was going down consistently--and then started going up in 05' and never looked back. It seems all roads lead to the 05' season. Anything happen that year?



106.1--it was 102.9 the year before. That has to be a record one year spike. I wonder why...

Yea, it was the rules then. We all know that.

Not sure your point...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Well...

In 1993, teams averaged 9 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 108

In 2020, teams averaged 34 threes per game. The offensive rating for the league was 110.6


Again, it depends on exactly which era you are talking about, but I mean...we really gonna claim the defense is just horrible today compared to 93 for example? Like, again, imagine how much easier defense is when your opponent takes only 9 threes a game.

Don't see how that makes what Rudy, Rubio and McMillan said any less true.

The rules are soft as shit. And the mandate is right here (https://www.nba.com/article/2018/10/08/new-rules-official-points-education-2018-19) in plain english

Just a fact.

And that isn't me saying players today aren't great. By and large talent is better than ever. There's high octane skill everywhere.

[Kblaze8855]

This isn't my era. Watched far more ball before the 3 pt explosion.

The 3 point explosion was only like 2015. Everyone over 15 watched more before that. But what I came up on was like....5-6 each team a game so that wasn’t even 2005 ball. This is all of our era...just not what we came up on.

[Overdrive]

Thats mostly due to spacing C's can provide today offensively. Gobert has to guard Jokic... he cant sink on Murray on a screen and play for the drive, because Jokic will wet the pick and pop 3 and dagger them. Most centers back in the day couldn't, or wouldn't due to philosophical reasons (bad shot) shoot 3's. 15-18 feet was their max range on average so rim protectors could afford to sink to the rim and guard it better.

It's one thing, but not being able to campninside the paint is definately a hindrance. Even if your opposing center can't shoot you can't skmply shadow a slasher in the paint. You'll have to roll over and more often than not it's too late and lead to a foul.

Bacl then it was illegal to leave your man, but it was restrictes to x feet within an opponent and you could switch up. So your center basically waited under the basket like a goal keeper.

Even DeAndre Jordan will drag you out of the paint these days, because it just isn't allowed to not to.


Kawhi will not come close to 45 dawg. Just not that high octane. More consistent scorer, but doesnt have that hot streak.

Feel the same about KD even if did not injure himself. How would this guy supposed to be score 65, when he had like 2 career 60pt games. He's a consistent high scorer, but he doesn't explode for huge games.


Yup... turns out a team wide effort to hit a shot worth 50% more points pays off.

The adders of the 3 pt line could've never imagined how good everybody would get at it. It used to be a taboo shot.


Right.

Of course it isn't just bad defense now. Yes, there are some rules that make life easier on offense today than in the past, but teams in the past were far easier to guard. Imagine how good defense could be, even with the softer rules currently, if teams were taking roughly 7 threes a game like they did a long time ago. At times, even less...

Truth is pretty simple like some are saying...teams finally figured out how idiotic it was not take a lot of shots that are worth 50% more points...and it has made life hell for defense ever since.

It's a chicken egg dilemma. We will never know if offenses would've geared towards 3 pt bombing if the rules never changed, but the efficient 3 pt shooting definately changed the NBA forever and even going back to the old rules would leave teams to figure out how they could efficiently outshoot their opponents from the perimeter.

[LoneyROY7]

And 0 finals appearances. That should tell you right there...

Consistency > random scoring outbursts

Kawhi is very consistent. That's one of his strongest attributes.

And yet you're over here getting so hurt over a simple statement of fact.

[Roundball_Rock]

The rules are soft as shit. And the mandate is right here in plain english

Just a fact.

Yup--a steady stream of rules all aimed explicitly at increasing scoring and making it easier for offensive players. It worked. If it didn't, the NBA would go back and make other changes. The goal is clear: bigger and bigger scoring numbers.

We see a similar thing in the NFL. When I started watching 3,000 passing yards was good and 4,000 a monster season--now 4,000 is league average and 3,000 is trash. The NFL changed the rules to encourage passing, with the aim of more scoring and more big plays. It worked.

The only question here is at what point do these leagues intervene to reverse the tide. There has to be a theoretical point where even the NBA or NFL say offense is too easy.

[Lebron23]

Kawhi is very consistent. That's one of his strongest attributes.

And yet you're over here getting so hurt over a simple statement of fact.

Harden with the 2019 and 2020 Raptors would be winning championships. Kawhi benefitted playing with great coaches and a good system.

[Marchesk]

The highest eFG% seasons in NBA history: 1) 20' (53%) 2) 19' (52%) 3) 18' (52%) 4) 17' (51%) 5) 16' (50%)

This speaks for itself. The question is: is there any scoring level that would cause the NBA to intervene? It is unlikely--fans love scoring--but at some point it would be so ridiculous the NBA would have to do something. Whether that is teams averaging 120, 130, 140, or 150 there has to be some theoretical point where the NBA would have to step in and make changes to give defenses a chance.

I think if the league average passes the high point in the 60s and everybody is putting up stats never seen before, then thee will be some push back. It looks like the league can get to 122-125 a game at this rate. Defenses are just at such a disadvantage, and more players are extending their range, creating even more spacing.

Otherwhise, they might as well make 2005 or 2015 their "since the NBA merger" cutoff like they do on ESPN when they don't want to count Wilt's stats.

[DMAVS41]

Don't see how that makes what Rudy, Rubio and McMillan said any less true.

The rules are soft as shit. And the mandate is right here (https://www.nba.com/article/2018/10/08/new-rules-official-points-education-2018-19) in plain english

Just a fact.

And that isn't me saying players today aren't great. By and large talent is better than ever. There's high octane skill everywhere.

We all agree that the rules are softer now. Where have I said otherwise? I simply said their actual impact on defense/offense is overblown.

Again, those "tougher rules" amounted almost no difference in league wide offensive output to many different eras in the past...and those offenses were playing an inferior strategy that was much easier to guard. So you have rules that make it easier to defend in the past and harder on offenses...and the offenses weren't as good as they are today because they were not taking advantage of basic math...

And yet...you saw almost no difference in offensive output from now to then...

So...like I said...it is overblown

[DMAVS41]

It's one thing, but not being able to campninside the paint is definately a hindrance. Even if your opposing center can't shoot you can't skmply shadow a slasher in the paint. You'll have to roll over and more often than not it's too late and lead to a foul.

Bacl then it was illegal to leave your man, but it was restrictes to x feet within an opponent and you could switch up. So your center basically waited under the basket like a goal keeper.

Even DeAndre Jordan will drag you out of the paint these days, because it just isn't allowed to not to.



Feel the same about KD even if did not injure himself. How would this guy supposed to be score 65, when he had like 2 career 60pt games. He's a consistent high scorer, but he doesn't explode for huge games.





It's a chicken egg dilemma. We will never know if offenses would've geared towards 3 pt bombing if the rules never changed, but the efficient 3 pt shooting definately changed the NBA forever and even going back to the old rules would leave teams to figure out how they could efficiently outshoot their opponents from the perimeter.

Perhaps, but that isn't really the debate...or my point.

I'm simply pointing out that given the rules of basketball...it is objectively stupid to take as few 3's as teams did in many past eras. I won't claim to know the optimal amount...perhaps right now teams take too many...but I don't think there should be much debate, given the rules, that taking less than 10 threes a game is just stupid. If we can't agree on that, I think you guys need a few math classes.

[DMAVS41]

Yup--a steady stream of rules all aimed explicitly at increasing scoring and making it easier for offensive players. It worked. If it didn't, the NBA would go back and make other changes. The goal is clear: bigger and bigger scoring numbers.

We see a similar thing in the NFL. When I started watching 3,000 passing yards was good and 4,000 a monster season--now 4,000 is league average and 3,000 is trash. The NFL changed the rules to encourage passing, with the aim of more scoring and more big plays. It worked.

The only question here is at what point do these leagues intervene to reverse the tide. There has to be a theoretical point where even the NBA or NFL say offense is too easy.

Funny how those awesome rules in 93, with teams playing objectively dumb offense by not understanding basic math...had teams scoring right on par or higher than many of the years you are referencing.

Let me guess....players were just much better back then.

[Roundball_Rock]

Funny how those awesome rules in 93, with teams playing objectively dumb offense by not understanding basic math...had teams scoring right on par or higher than many of the years you are referencing.


Faster pace in 93' than the years you note.

I don't think it was a matter of math. There were teams who took as many threes as the NBA did in 16' when the three point line was shortened. There just weren't nearly as many proficient three point shooters back then. Now most players can shoot threes to some degree of competency (as Embiid launches a three--how many did Hakeem or Ewing take?). Back then the best three point shooters were people who had trouble creating their own shot.

The tradeoff is a bunch of players spending all day practicing 3's and sucking from the mid-range. George had a lengthy thread a few weeks ago and his spilts are revealing: he is great at the rim and from 3 but useless between 4-22 feet. Why does this matter? A lot of these players get in trouble when their threes aren't falling, especially in the playoffs. That is one think that makes Kawhi so reliable. He has a reliable, lethal mid-range game that will be there consistently. A player like George will go 9 for 13 on threes one day and then 2 for 12 the next.

[3ball]

Funny how those awesome rules in 93, with teams playing objectively dumb offense by not understanding basic math...had teams scoring right on par or higher than many of the years you are referencing.

Let me guess....players were just much better back then.

They scored the same despite not shooting threes because they were more efficient from 2-point range/better shotmakers

In 2-point basketball, players/teams aren't expecting to get open shots in the unspaced environment, so players got in a flow of shooting with the first inch of daylight - players run up and down taking one contested shot after another - no need to slow pace down to get an open look

[DMAVS41]

Faster pace in 93' than the years you note.

I don't think it was a matter of math. There were teams who took as many threes as the NBA did in 16' when the three point line was shortened. There just weren't nearly as many proficient three point shooters back then. Now most players can shoot threes to some degree of competency (as Embiid launches a three--how many did Hakeem or Ewing take?). Back then the best three point shooters were people who had trouble creating their own shot.

The tradeoff is a bunch of players spending all day practicing 3's and sucking from the mid-range. George had a lengthy thread a few weeks ago and his spilts are revealing: he is great at the rim and from 3 but useless between 4-22 feet. Why does this matter? A lot of these players get in trouble when their threes aren't falling, especially in the playoffs. That is one think that makes Kawhi so reliable. He has a reliable, lethal mid-range game that will be there consistently. A player like George will go 9 for 13 on threes one day and then 2 for 12 the next.

Yup to the bold. Which makes playing defense, regardless of the rules, significantly harder.

That is my point...yes, of course the rules play a part in this...I completely agree with that, but it isn't nearly as big of a part as players being far more capable from the 3 point line and teams knowing the math now. It simply is much harder to defend offenses today than it was in the past.

And the disparities...outside of like the early 00's...really just aren't that big enough to warrant the kind of defense bashing that goes on right now.

At some point we just have to admit that the current strategy is way better and players are broadly more capable offensive players for scoring efficiently.

Of course there are trade-offs, but there are also simple facts...and one huge simple fact is that teams shot a sub-optimal amount of 3's in the past based on the math of basketball.

[DMAVS41]

They scored the same despite not shooting threes because they were more efficient from 2-point range/better shotmakers

You are missing the point.

Similar offensive ratings...and one offense is much harder to guard. Kind of hard to then argue that defense sucks today and was much better in the past.

You follow?

[Kblaze8855]

They literally set out to make it harder to keep people from getting open. There was an article in the preseason of I think 2017 where some Clipper got 4 fouls on defense in 17 minutes all off the ball. Doc was laughing saying he likes freedom of movement now that he doesn’t have to guard NBA athletes. It was agreed you have to stop doing all they previously could to keep players from being open off the ball. Hold him. Fight for position. Anticipate the cut and not allow it. You can’t even make him change direction. I remember a guy saying you can’t keep people from being open...you have to let them get open then rush to get back in the play.

The nba did the shit on purpose. They wanted shooters open. They wanted easier scoring. There isn’t a single great perimeter defender of the 90s or even 2000s who would be permitted to play his defense now. The rules would make him play worse defense...reduce off ball denial. Not let him fight for position the same way.

Defense lost options not just gained new responsibilities. The nba flat out took away things the D could do in favor of scoring. Regardless of all the rest....defenders are in fact made less capable by the rules.

[3ball]

You are missing the point.

Similar offensive ratings...and one offense is much harder to guard. Kind of hard to then argue that defense sucks today and was much better in the past.

You follow?

Since when is 110 an equal rating to 108?

108 used to be the RECORD... it's crazy to see a full point added on top of that, let alone 2 or 2.5

Also, previous eras were better shot-makers especially contested shot-making due to lack of spacing - more than just threes and layups

[juju151111]

They literally set out to make it harder to keep people from getting open. There was an article in the preseason of I think 2017 where some Clipper got 4 fouls on defense in 17 minutes all off the ball. Doc was laughing saying he likes freedom of movement now that he doesn’t have to guard NBA athletes. It was agreed you have to stop doing all they previously could to keep players from being open off the ball. Hold him. Fight for position. Anticipate the cut and not allow it. You can’t even make him change direction. I remember a guy saying you can’t keep people from being open...you have to let them get open then rush to get back in the play.

The nba did the shit on purpose. They wanted shooters open. They wanted easier scoring. There isn’t a single great perimeter defender of the 90s or even 2000s who would be permitted to play his defense now. The rules would make him play worse defense...reduce off ball denial. Not let him fight for position the same way.

Defense lost options not just gained new responsibilities. The nba flat out took away things the D could do in favor of scoring. Regardless of all the rest....defenders are in fact made less capable by the rules.
yea people don't realize how much that changes. You come off screens basically fresh

[Kblaze8855]

Player questioning if someone as recent as Tony Allen could play the same today:


“It’s definitely gonna eliminate a lot of defenders who get physical,” Spurs forward Dante Cunningham told The Ringer after a recent win over the Lakers in Los Angeles. “I’m thinking of one in particular: Tony Allen. Back in the day, he was just a physical presence at all times. He wanted to put his hands on you at every moment. If you moved, he moved with you and grabbed you just to let you know he’s there. I’ve learned a lot from playing with him, playing against him, and just watching him defensively. But you have to adapt now. If they run through the lane, you can’t even touch them. You have to show your hands and keep it moving.”
Cunningham was then asked how he’s adapting to the new rules. “I’m obviously not adapting,” he said. “I just fouled out.”

[DMAVS41]

Since when is 110 an equal rating to 108?

108 used to be the RECORD... it's crazy to see a full point added on top of that, let alone 2 or 2.5

Also, previous eras were better shot-makers especially contested shot-making due to lack of spacing - more than just threes and layups

Similar is not equal. I said similar.

I'm not sure what you guys are arguing even...literally everyone agrees the rules are easier now for offensive players.

Yet it seems there is a group of you that can't do basic math and understand the implications of taking 3 to 4 times more threes and what that does to defenses and how much harder that is to defend.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Similar is not equal. I said similar.

I'm not sure what you guys are arguing even...literally everyone agrees the rules are easier now for offensive players.

If you agree, what are you rambling on about?

Yes everyone knows today's players shoot more threes. And that threes open up the game and spacing. It has also already been explained that a 110 O-Rating versus a 108 is a BIG difference. That's like a Top 5 offense right now versus a 17th ranked one.

[DMAVS41]

They literally set out to make it harder to keep people from getting open. There was an article in the preseason of I think 2017 where some Clipper got 4 fouls on defense in 17 minutes all off the ball. Doc was laughing saying he likes freedom of movement now that he doesn’t have to guard NBA athletes. It was agreed you have to stop doing all they previously could to keep players from being open off the ball. Hold him. Fight for position. Anticipate the cut and not allow it. You can’t even make him change direction. I remember a guy saying you can’t keep people from being open...you have to let them get open then rush to get back in the play.

The nba did the shit on purpose. They wanted shooters open. They wanted easier scoring. There isn’t a single great perimeter defender of the 90s or even 2000s who would be permitted to play his defense now. The rules would make him play worse defense...reduce off ball denial. Not let him fight for position the same way.

Defense lost options not just gained new responsibilities. The nba flat out took away things the D could do in favor of scoring. Regardless of all the rest....defenders are in fact made less capable by the rules.

Yep to the bold.

In addition, those same defenders, even with those old rules...playing against the offenses today...would not impact the game the same way because guarding in the past was simply easier due to the flawed offensive strategy employed by the opposing team.

So so so so much easier to defend a contracted floor with everyone clumped together.

It goes both ways.

[DMAVS41]

If you agree, what are you rambling on about?

Yes everyone knows today's players shoot more threes. And that threes open up the game and spacing. It has also already been explained that a 110 O-Rating versus a 108 is a BIG difference. That's like a Top 5 offense right now versus a 17th ranked one.

What?

It isn't a big difference at all if you actually concede that offense is significantly better today.

People are arguing how bad defense is currently. I'm simply pointing out that it can't be as bad as some of you are claiming if you are willing to concede defending better offenses is inherently more difficult now.

Not sure what you are confused about.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

What?

It isn't a big difference at all if you actually concede that offense is significantly better today.

People are arguing how bad defense is currently. I'm simply pointing out that it can't be as bad as some of you are claiming if you are willing to concede defending better offenses is inherently more difficult now.

Not sure what you are confused about.

If you think offense today is "significantly better" then how is that NOT a big difference. Once again, that's the disparity between a 17th ranked O to one that is 5th. In other words, a big ass difference.

The argument is pretty straightforward. You already admitted that the rules are easier. As per today's players and coaches. So what is it that you aren't understanding?

[Roundball_Rock]

ESPN graphic at the end of PHI-BOS: Luka averaging 30.0 in the bubble--not even top 5 in the NBA during that time frame. :lol

[3ball]

can't do basic math and understand the implications of taking 3 to 4 times more threes and what that does to defenses and how much harder that is to defend.and


Of course it's harder to defend, which is why you see the much higher ORtg's.. 110 ORtg is unbelievable - so the average offense is good - 110-111 ortg is good team offense

That's why everyone's stats increased, especially the stars with higher volume

[DMAVS41]

If you think offense today is "significantly better" then how is that NOT a big difference. Once again, that's a disparty between a 17th ranked O to one that is 5th. In other words, a big ass difference.

The argument is pretty straightforward. You already admitted that the rules are easier. As per today's players and coaches. So what is it that you aren't understanding?

You are just confused.

Not sure how else to explain it...I'll try one more time.

Take a team from the 90's and plant them in the league today and have them play with 90's rules (the rules that we all think made it easier to defend)...whatever their defensive rating as a team was back then...would go up having to play against the superior offenses of today.

So lets say they have a 100 defensive rating back then...I'd expect them to have a higher defensive rating playing against the current offenses...even playing with the old rules. How much higher, we can get into that I guess...

So, no...it isn't that big of a difference if you are already building that in.

Tell me what you aren't getting.

[NBAGOAT]

people still overlooking the oreb strategy shift on both sides and the fouling strategy. ts% is significantly higher 54.3% in 95 to 56.5% today but efg% even more so 50.0% to 52.9%. it's a lot easier to get drebs now however.

[Kblaze8855]

Teams wouldn’t be able to take or make so many threes if you weren’t required to let people be undefended off the ball to begin with. It’s not as simple as better offenses. These offenses were designed to take advantage of the rules favoring it. Total chicken and the egg situation. And much like that supposedly difficult question there is an answer.


The chicken came first. It laid something slightly different.

The rules changes made these offenses possible. Talking about what a previous team would do against them doesn’t really make sense. These offenses exist on the first place because those defenses were deemed too effective.

You literally can’t play modern basketball with 90s rules. One of the two has to go. You can shoot a bunch of bad shots over the top but the offense simply wouldn’t run the same. The rules were changed to create these offenses.

It’s like saying just play an nba game in the olympics. The rules don’t let you play an nba game. Spamming threes over the top doesn’t make it modern nba basketball.

Anyone could go take 50 threes. The threes wouldn’t be as open. Once you changed the rules the teams wouldn’t play like 2020. Mike Dantoni knew 3 was more than 2 15 years ago. I didn’t see them shooting 50 threes on the Suns. You play the game your league caters to for the most part.

[NBAGOAT]

Teams wouldn’t be able to take or make so many threes if you weren’t required to let people be undefended off the ball to begin with. It’s not as simple as better offenses. These offenses were designed to take advantage of the rules favoring it. Total chicken and the egg situation. And much like that supposedly difficult question there is an answer.


The chicken came first. It laid something slightly different.

The rules changes made these offenses possible. Talking about what a pervious team would do against them doesn’t really make sense. These offenses exist on the first place because those defenses were deemed too effective.

You literally can’t play modern basketball with 90s rules. One of the two has to go. You can shoot a bunch of bad shots over the top but the offense simply wouldn’t run the same. The rules were changed to create these offenses.

It’s like saying just play an nba game in the olympics. The rules don’t let you play an nba game. Spamming threes over the top doesn’t make it modern nba basketball.

what about constant drive and kicks along and using screens to get off physical defenders. defense still has the same options on a screen and roll, switch it which means a guard vs a slow big, drop the big to protect the paint which gives a guard a pull up look or trapping which leads to a big getting an open look. You for good reason consider jacking a contested 3 over someone a bad look but for a lot guys including role players it's not.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You are just confused.

Not sure how else to explain it...I'll try one more time.

Take a team from the 90's and plant them in the league today and have them play with 90's rules (the rules that we all think made it easier to defend)...whatever their defensive rating as a team was back then...would go up having to play against the superior offenses of today.

You're repeating yourself with points I have already cleared up.

We're past that now.

Once again, the difference between a 108 (1993) to 110 (today) rating is significant. Typically that is the equivalent of a below average offense vs an elite one. We are using today's game as the measuring stick though. Don't know how teams then would fare now, but I would guess their O ratings go up across the board too.

Three's aren't the only thing that go into ORating either. OReb, OReb rate, Team Play Rate, Team Turnover PCT, Assist and Freethrow rate are all considered.


So lets say they have a 100 defensive rating back then...I'd expect them to have a higher defensive rating playing against the current offenses...even playing with the old rules. How much higher, we can get into that I guess...

You would expect that because the rules are softer. Like you already admitted. Again though, you originally drew a comparison between 93 and 2020. The difference was 2 points in O Rating. We know a 2 point difference is like comparing a below average offense to an elite one. AKA a top 5 rated offense.


Tell me what you aren't getting.

If you still need help computing the numbers, I will continue to educate you. Don't know what else to tell you.

[DMAVS41]

Pretty much disagree with all of that.

I don't think you are giving enough credit to how good NBA players are offensively with spread floors where you can't leave guys open.

This is why I say it is overblown...just two years ago the offensive rating for the league was 108.6...in 1993 it was 108...

The way you describe basketball in the past is like there was no outside shooting. There was...it was just a bunch of bad long 2's...those have been replaced by 3's...and players are simply better at them now.

[DMAVS41]

You're repeating yourself with points I have already cleared up.

We're past that now.

Once again, the difference between a 108 (1993) to 110 (today) rating is significant. Typically that is the equivalent of a below average offense vs an elite one. We are using today's game as the measuring stick though. Don't know how teams then would fare now, but I would guess their O ratings go up across the board too.

Three's aren't the only thing that go into ORating either. OReb, OReb rate, Team Play Rate, Team Turnover PCT, Assist and Freethrow rate are all considered.



You would expect that because the rules are softer. Like you already admitted. Again though, you originally drew a comparison between 93 and 2020. The difference was 2 points in O Rating. We know a 2 point difference is like comparing a below average offense to an elite one. AKA a top 5 rated offense.



If you still need help computing the numbers, I will continue to educate you. Don't know what else to tell you.

All that and you failed to follow my point. I said the rules would the 90's rules dude. Can you read? You'd expect the defensive rating of a team from the 90's to increase playing against the offenses of today...even with the 90's rules. So, no, you aren't making sense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

All that and you failed to follow my point. I said the rules would the 90's rules dude. Can you read? You'd expect the defensive rating of a team from the 90's to increase playing against the offenses of today...even with the 90's rules. So, no, you aren't making sense.

You're still not following the debate. Nor are the numbers registering.

You originally compared a 93 team to one from 20.

The difference was 2 points in O rating.

Again a 108 and 110 difference is HUGE when talking about this stuff. Sorry, you don't get to pretend otherwise.

[Kblaze8855]

what about constant drive and kicks along and using screens to get off physical defenders. defense still has the same options on a screen and roll, switch it which means a guard vs a slow big, drop the big to protect the paint which gives a guard a pull up look or trapping which leads to a big getting an open look. You for good reason consider jacking a contested 3 over someone a bad look but for a lot guys including role players it's not.

A lot of great off the ball players used constant screens to barely get open. Reggie Miller may be the off ball goat and he had a constant rotation of big bodies to screen off. But it was a fight.

Dont let anyone touch him off the ball he’s not having a lot of those 8-13 shot nights.

We aren’t considering why so many of the tactics used to get open open work so well now....


The nba told defenders they couldn’t do what they had become too good at.

A lot of things today make it hard to defend teams. And most of them involve tactics that were born of the defense being handicapped for the express purpose of opening up the game.

[DMAVS41]

You guys really have to stop pretending basketball was something it wasn't back then.

We have the shooting splits.

In 1997, for example, teams took just over 30% of their shots from between 10ft and the 3 point line.

In 2020, for example, teams took right at 17% of their shots from between 10ft and the 3 point line.



That is simply bad basketball to take such a high percentage of shots on long 2's given the rules of the game. In addition, it doesn't exactly jive with this "you couldn't get good shots" against old defenses narrative.

[DMAVS41]

You're still not following the debate. Nor are the numbers registering.

You originally compared a 93 team to one from 20.

The difference was 2 points in O rating.

Again a 108 and 110 difference is HUGE when talking about this stuff. Sorry, you don't get to pretend otherwise.

I completely disagree. I'd expect a noticeable increase just off the improved offense alone. In the post above I gave you the shooting splits. Teams back then were taking a bunch of long 2's...and that was just dumb. Made them far easier to defend. So that 108 defensive rating transported to today is going up...even with the old rules.

So, no, it isn't a HUGE difference if you are willing to think a little.

[NBAGOAT]

A lot of great off the ball players used constant screens to barely get open. Reggie Miller may be the off ball goat and he had a constant rotation of big bodies to screen off. But it was a fight.

Dont let anyone touch him off the ball he’s not having a lot of those 8-13 shot nights.

We aren’t considering why so many of the tactics used to get open open work so well now....


The nba told defenders they couldn’t do what they had become too good at.

A lot of things today make it hard to defend teams. And most of them involve tactics that were born of the defense being handicapped for the express purpose of opening up the game.

I think you're exaggerating how many use off ball play to get open. yea there are obvious ones like curry klay and hield. But a team like hou who takes the most 3's in the league you can argue has no one that does that. dallas who's in top 3 does it a little with seth and haradway. It's a drive and kick stand at the line game. Guys are open because they have to converge to the paint or run out to the 3pt line to double someone like harden or dame

Edit: and reggie exploited that physicality and went to a line at a ridiculous rate for a guy who didnt score too often at the rim. I'm exaggerating but there are 15+ guys who can flop that well now. Look at klay he never goes to the line so there's a trade off for the physicality,

[Kblaze8855]

You guys really have to stop pretending basketball was something it wasn't back then.

We have the shooting splits.

In 1997, for example, teams took just over 30% of their shots from between 10ft and the 3 point line.

In 2020, for example, teams took right at 17% of their shots from between 10ft and the 3 point line.



That is simply bad basketball to take such a high percentage of shots on long 2's given the rules of the game. In addition, it doesn't exactly jive with this "you couldn't get good shots" against old defenses narrative.


So you are saying that them taking worse shots doesn’t jive with the idea that they got worse shots against those defenses?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I completely disagree. I'd expect a noticeable increase just off the improved offense alone. In the post above I gave you the shooting splits. Teams back then were taking a bunch of long 2's...and that was just dumb. Made them far easier to defend. So that 108 defensive rating transported to today is going up...even with the old rules.

So, no, it isn't a HUGE difference if you are willing to think a little.

Yeah if you don't think the difference between a below average and elite offense is significant, you're an idiot.

Again a 2 point difference is massive. Pretending otherwise is more proof you don't know how ANY of this works.

[Whoah10115]

Pretty much disagree with all of that.

I don't think you are giving enough credit to how good NBA players are offensively with spread floors where you can't leave guys open.

This is why I say it is overblown...just two years ago the offensive rating for the league was 108.6...in 1993 it was 108...

The way you describe basketball in the past is like there was no outside shooting. There was...it was just a bunch of bad long 2's...those have been replaced by 3's...and players are simply better at them now.

I don't think you know shit.

Shut the **** up.

[Kblaze8855]

I think you're exaggerating how many use off ball play to get open. yea there are obvious ones like curry klay and hield. But a team like hou who takes the most 3's in the league you can argue has no one that does that. dallas who's in top 3 does it a little with seth and haradway. It's a drive and kick stand at the line game. Guys are open because they have to converge to the paint or run out to the 3pt line to double someone like harden or dame

Edit: and reggie exploited that physicality and went to a line at a ridiculous rate for a guy who didnt score too often at the rim. I'm exaggerating but there are 15+ guys who can flop that well now. Look at klay he never goes to the line so there's a trade off for the physicality,


Literally two guys on the mavs came off screens to the 3 point line off the ball in the last 20 seconds.

[Gudo]

They should bring back some form of hand checking since the offense has progressed quite enough already.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah if you don't think the difference between a below average and elite offense is significant, you're a fukking idiot.

Again, a 2 point difference is massive. Pretending otherwise is more proof you don't know how ANY of this works.

Educate yourself.

It is comparing a league with the same rules with the same strategies employed.

Comparing across eras like this you have to build in things. One thing, anyone with a brain would build in...is that offenses are inherently harder to defend today than in the past.

But I see that you've thrown in the towel and refuse to engage.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't think you know shit.

Shut the **** up.

Of course he doesn't.

According to the numbers, he's basically saying that compared with today, basketball in 93 was below average. Nobody with mild intelligence is buying that crap :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Edit: and reggie exploited that physicality and went to a line at a ridiculous rate for a guy who didnt score too often at the rim. I'm exaggerating but there are 15+ guys who can flop that well now. Look at klay he never goes to the line so there's a trade off for the physicality,

Reggie was the one being physical--he would kick the defender as he shot and the defender would somehow be called for the foul. The refs rewarded him for that shtick but that explains him as an outlier.


So you are saying that them taking worse shots doesn’t jive with the idea that they got worse shots against those defenses?

Yeah, those were contested shots. Compare that it the open shots that are routine today. If you gave those players 5 feet of space on shots their percentages would obviously rise as well.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It is comparing a league with the same rules with the same strategies employed.

Comparing across eras like this you have to build in things. One thing, anyone with a brain would build in...is that offenses are inherently harder to defend today than in the past.

But I see that you've thrown in the towel and refuse to engage.

You flatout compared 93 to 2020 pages ago. Quit bullshitting.

[NBAGOAT]

Literally two guys on the mavs came off screens to the 3 point line off the ball in the last 20 seconds.

yea it happens a bit but not that often. dallas gets 5 shot attempts a game off offball screens at only 11th in the league. and for that 30% vs 17% number some of that is shot selection. you practically never see a kickout for a long 2 now that happened in 1995.

[DMAVS41]

And literally in the last 20 seconds Luka drilled a step back 3 that in the past eras would have been a long 2.

[Kblaze8855]

yea it happens a bit but not that often. dallas gets 5 shot attempts a game off offball screens at only 11th in the league. and for that 30% vs 17% number some of that is shot selection. you practically never see a kickout for a long 2 now that happened in 1995.

Neither of those players were using that action to attempt to score. Open players and the reaction to that goes well beyond which of the players actually shoots.

[DMAVS41]

You compared 93 to 2020 flat-out pages ago. Quit bullshitting.

:confusedshrug:

Yes.

With the built in assumption that the average defensive rating back then would go up having to play against the offenses of today...even with the old rules. Holy shit...are you actually disputing that?

Lets try this for fun.

The 97 Orlando Magic had a defensive rating of 106. What is your best estimate of what their defensive rating would be playing against the offenses of the 2020 season, but with the 90's rules?

[NBAGOAT]

Reggie was the one being physical--he would kick the defender as he shot and the defender would somehow be called for the foul. The refs rewarded him for that shtick but that explains him as an outlier.



Yeah, those were contested shots. Compare that it the open shots that are routine today. If you gave those players 5 feet of space on shots their percentages would obviously rise as well.

ah I see what you're saying. I was saying a lot of guys today could have no problem if they were transferred 25 years ago because their flopping would work even better but that's a bit unfair. Yea most guys didnt exploit physical rules as much back then so that hurts offenses. the shot selection thing cant be overlooked however, the spot up long 2 went from commonplace to non existent

[Kblaze8855]

And literally in the last 20 seconds Luka drilled a step back 3 that in the past eras would have been a long 2.


And he might make more than 31% of them. Whole other game.

[DMAVS41]

And he might make more than 31% of them. Whole other game.

Yep, a flawed offensive strategy that shrinks the floor for no reason, encourages players to take bad shots, and makes it easier for the defense to guard you.

In addition...31% from 3 is better than the roughly 40% average on mid to long range twos....at least in 1998 when I looked up the splits.

Math matters.

[NBAGOAT]

Neither of those players were using that action to attempt to score. Open players and the reaction to that goes well beyond which of the players actually shoots.

true. I dont think dallas runs that much offball action but that's going off topic. I counter with offball action is more effective now also partially because guys shoot better.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, mid-to-long two's are going extinct but it comes back to haunt players when their three pointer is off. You can't get to the rim every play.

[NBAGOAT]

Yeah, mid-to-long two's are going extinct but it comes back to haunt players when their three pointer is off. You can't get to the rim every play.

for a star in isolation sure though I think it gets exaggerated. There is no reason for a catch and shoot big who can shoot from 18ft not to try to expand his range however.

[Roundball_Rock]

for a star in isolation sure though I think it gets exaggerated. There is no reason for a catch and shoot big who can shoot from 18ft not to try to expand his range however.

PG is a good example of the problem.


Despite being an elite outside shooter, he has never shot that well from the field. His career 2-point field goal percentage is 47.0, far behind players like Kevin Durant (53.2), Kawhi (53.4), and LeBron James (54.9). He doesn’t finish at the rim like those guys, and settles for more long 2s than he should.

That is a huge delta and it is driven by his inability to shoot from 4-22 feet. Rim, three, or bust. So if his three is off in a playoff game, since defenses aren't going to let him waltz to the rim every play, he gets in trouble. Kawhi is consistent because he can shoot from any spot on the floor.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/7/9/21317352/can-paul-george-reward-kawhi-and-the-clippers-faith

[Whoah10115]

Of course he doesn't.

According to the numbers, he's basically saying that compared with today, basketball in 93 was below average. Nobody with mild intelligence is buying that crap :oldlol:

He's like Roundball_Rock. He comes out of nowhere and by the end of his comment you don't know exactly what he came in to say.

With Mr. Rock it's about how Jordan stans are obsessed or shook or some other idiot's word. With this Mavs boy it's always some made up explanation of something he's got exclusive knowledge of, then tedious spew, then finally Kobe isn't that good.

If you're gonna be pretentious at least go make Purple Rain or something.

[DMAVS41]

Of course he doesn't.

According to the numbers, he's basically saying that compared with today, basketball in 93 was below average. Nobody with mild intelligence is buying that crap :oldlol:

Wow, when did you become so terrible on here?

[Kblaze8855]

Yep, a flawed offensive strategy that shrinks the floor for no reason, encourages players to take bad shots, and makes it easier for the defense to guard you.

In addition...31% from 3 is better than the roughly 40% average on mid to long range twos....at least in 1998 when I looked up the splits.

Math matters.


So version 45 of Jordan/Dirk/Bird/West/Kareem reliable baskets that you can get on command vs the math based attack of going for maximum points in 48 minutes while being less likely to make any individual one you need?


I think we have done that enough these last 10 years. I....am gonna eat this Wingstop instead.

[NBAGOAT]

PG is a good example of the problem.



That is a huge delta and it is driven by his inability to shoot from 4-22 feet. Rim, three, or bust. So if his three is off in a playoff game, since defenses aren't going to let him waltz to the rim every play, he gets in trouble. Kawhi is consistent because he can shoot from any spot on the floor.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/7/9/21317352/can-paul-george-reward-kawhi-and-the-clippers-faith

alright george has problem but again as your quote says a huge problem for him is he doesnt finish at the rim either. Ik two of the better playoff scorers right now in kd and kawhi have a big midrange game but there are other guys who do who do not score well in the playoffs.

[3ball]

Drtg of Denver?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Wow, when did you become so terrible on here?

Not the one who doesn't understand how O Rating works. Even worse, incorrectly drawing conclusions from it.

That's all you boss.

Not much more needs to be said. :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

So version 45 of Jordan/Dirk/Bird/West/Kareem reliable baskets that you can get on command vs the math based attack of going for maximum points in 48 minutes while being less likely to make any individual one you need?


I think we have done that enough these last 10 years. I....am gonna eat this Wingstop instead.

Strawman.

You are listing players that make those shots at a high enough rate to warrant taking them a lot. Most players don't.

Regardless, that wasn't my point...and you know that...enjoy the food.

[DMAVS41]

Not the one who doesn't understand how O Rating works. Even worse, incorrectly drawing conclusions from it.

That would be you.

Answer the question.

The 97 Magic had a 106 drtg...what would you expect their drtg to be if they played in the current league, but with 90's rules?

Hell, you don't even have to give me a number. Would their defensive rating go up or down?

Answer that and then you can tell me what I'm so wrong about.

[Whoah10115]

So version 45 of Jordan/Dirk/Bird/West/Kareem reliable baskets that you can get on command vs the math based attack of going for maximum points in 48 minutes while being less likely to make any individual one you need?


I think we have done that enough these last 10 years. I....am gonna eat this Wingstop instead.

Wingstop is disgusting.

[kawhileonard2]

The fact Mitchell just had a 50 point game and I believe Shaq, Lebron and Kobe only have 1 each shows how easy it is to score.

[CTbasketball92]

DOnovan Mitchell is streaky but he's just a tough guy with no fear. He'll be an all-star for years at minimum.

[tpols]

So version 45 of Jordan/Dirk/Bird/West/Kareem reliable baskets that you can get on command vs the math based attack of going for maximum points in 48 minutes while being less likely to make any individual one you need?


I think we have done that enough these last 10 years. I....am gonna eat this Wingstop instead.

You dont need an on command bucket for every possession in the flow of the game. Thats saved for special momentous occasions. Players used to take a ton of 18-20 footers... why not take a step back, get 50% more points, and space the floor better for your teammates to boot?

It's the evolution of the game.

[GimmeThat]

so, if this team was healthy, they'd be taking the 2000-2001 Lakers to 7 games and on a coin toss, right

[ArbitraryWater]

For sure. Far less psychological pressure. Which honestly, may not be a bad thing.

I'm torn.

I do wish the crowds were there because, while this may not be rational on my part, it makes for a seemingly more compelling product.

However, I also think I'd rather see what these guys are capable of from a pure basketball standpoint, rather than having their stress resistance to crowd noise being tested also... because that's not actually basketball. It's just a psychological thing that's unrelated the actual game itself.

Eh, I dunno.

but that belongs to the spectacle of any team sport really

at least at the high levels

[Kblaze8855]

You dont need an on command bucket for every possession in the flow of the game. Thats saved for special momentous occasions. Players used to take a ton of 18-20 footers... why not take a step back, get 50% more points, and space the floor better for your teammates to boot?

It's the evolution of the game.


Id say its needed on far more than momentous occasions. Be nice to have a guy who can get an easy 2 instead of say....missing 27 threes in a row with a finals trip on the line.

That Paul/Durant/Leonard, Dirk/Kobe/Pierce, Jordan/Bird/Hakeem area of operation has been pretty hard to deal with when a guy needs a good shot since the 50s.

Over the course of _____ possessions your team should get more points taking 3s if they are good at them. But that math doesnt get you shit when the other guy can score almost on command and the game is tight. Which is why ive never said dont shoot threes. Ive always said dont let the total game atrophy by insisting on 3s or layups.

The best clutch players ever might well not be allowed to develop in todays games. They would still be great obviously but their games would be quite different. Beat the midrange out of Jordan at a young age who knows what hes taking over Russell for the title. Some Lillard prayer shit perhaps. Be spectacular when it goes in....but it just wouldnt go in as often.

On the other hand....once you eliminate the total floor scorers from the game it wont matter who can do it. Even playing field. Perhaps thats the end result.

Not allow guys like Dirk and Kobe to exist to begin with and you wont have to deal with the advantage they have over guys who cant only spot up or dunk.

[NuggetsFan]

NBA fans might be the only fanbase that thinks the league/players got less skilled/less talented. Guess it's by far the most player fan driven which I have a feeling plays a big factor in that. More MJ vs LeBron, than 90's vs the current setup. I get not liking the current league. I like the mid 2000's way more. Same with the NFL. Tons of people prefer the non offensive geared, let the QB do whatever league etc. Acting like Iverson or whoever can shoot like Dame is comical tho. As shooters .. these guys are insane. Look at Dame's %'s on 30 footers. Like you can't guard those.

I use to be kinda similar but what changed my mind big time was the FT's. People, myself included, would always bitch about how easy it was to get FT's. How if you placed player X into today's game they'd shoot 20 FT's a night. Than I actually looked at the numbers and realized teams today shoot less FT's on average than pretty much any other era. Seriously. Look it up. 17-18 was the lowest average FTA per game of All-Time.

[insight]

NBA fans might be the only fanbase that thinks the league/players got less skilled/less talented. Guess it's by far the most player fan driven which I have a feeling plays a big factor in that. More MJ vs LeBron, than 90's vs the current setup. I get not liking the current league. I like the mid 2000's way more. Same with the NFL. Tons of people prefer the non offensive geared, let the QB do whatever league etc. Acting like Iverson or whoever can shoot like Dame is comical tho. As shooters .. these guys are insane. Look at Dame's %'s on 30 footers. Like you can't guard those.

I use to be kinda similar but what changed my mind big time was the FT's. People, myself included, would always bitch about how easy it was to get FT's. How if you placed player X into today's game they'd shoot 20 FT's a night. Than I actually looked at the numbers and realized teams today shoot less FT's on average than pretty much any other era. Seriously. Look it up. 17-18 was the lowest average FTA per game of All-Time.


There are more aspects an performance and productivity other than fundamental basketball skills. How do you quantify how easier it is to shoot when you don't have to worry about someone entering your landing space? Can you shoot a higher percentage when you don't have to fear a forearm shiver to your chest when your driving for a layup or dunk? It was legal for players to spread and swing their elbows violently after rebounding the ball, is it easier to grab a rebound now when it would be considered a fragrant foul today? . The NBA has removed the physicality out of the game, which has lead to increased offensive production. Same thing happened in the NFL, it's the evolution of sports and society. Dame or Mitchell might score 50 but I personally think Micheal Jordan could easily score 100 points in a playoff game in this era, there would be literally no way to stop him.

[Roundball_Rock]

Plus being better at threes, which they practice 24/7, does not=better shooters overall. A player like George shoots 41% on threes but 36% from 3-10 feet.

The three point revolution works great when it is going in but a team like 18' Houston had no other card to play and kept bricking threes instead of going to Plan B. That was the difference between a chip and losing.

[NuggetsFan]

There are more aspects an performance and productivity other than fundamental basketball skills. How do you quantify how easier it is to shoot when you don't have to worry about someone entering your landing space? Can you shoot a higher percentage when you don't have to fear a forearm shiver to your chest when your driving for a layup or dunk? It was legal for players to spread and swing their elbows violently after rebounding the ball, is it easier to grab a rebound now when it would be considered a fragrant foul today? . The NBA has removed the physicality out of the game, which has lead to increased offensive production. Same thing happened in the NFL, it's the evolution of sports and society. Dame or Mitchell might score 50 but I personally think Micheal Jordan could easily score 100 points in a playoff game in this era, there would be literally no way to stop him.

I don't disagree with everything I just think people exaggerate. Kblaze for sure. Like I said too NBA fans more than any other sport are so player focused. It's more about MJ than it is about the Bulls. People use like 10-15 players as an example, or when you say something will point to like a handful of players to prove you wrong when were discussing the entire league. Thinking Jordan could easily score 100 points in today's playoffs is just insane for example. In '91 the league averaged 106.3 points. This year it was 111.8. In '17-18 it was 106.3. In 90-91 they were shooting almost 28 FT's per game compared to 23 this year.

Is the league less physical? Absolutely. Basketball has always been closer to say something like soccer than it is football/hockey etc. As physical as the league was, it was was nowhere near as physical as some people make it seem. For example nobody ever talks about how Phil/Jordan/Pippen basically bitched to the NBA league office about the Pistons. Saying it wasn't "basketball".

I've always said it's more about the 7th-12th guys than it is the superstars. The 1% will always stay the same. The difference in training, nutrition, and even shit like ease of access. Stuff like travel, technology, even shit like TMZ that doesn't allow players to run as wild as they did make the bottom half of rosters far more skilled/talented than it was 20 years ago. The elite players are always going to be elite but the bottom half of NBA rosters are drastically better in 2020 than they were in 1985.

[NBAGOAT]

Plus being better at threes, which they practice 24/7, does not=better shooters overall. A player like George shoots 41% on threes but 36% from 3-10 feet.

The three point revolution works great when it is going in but a team like 18' Houston had no other card to play and kept bricking threes instead of going to Plan B. That was the difference between a chip and losing.

it's always this glasses half empty approach when it comes to strategies people dont like. The reverse is I can argue hou wouldnt be as competitive vs a more talented team without their high variance strategy. Two games they won by a combined 7 points and both games they won the 3pt battle vs gs which is hard to do. werent even going in at a great rate either, sub 32% both games. Applied even more in 2019 when cp3 and their defense wasnt nearly as good.

[Kblaze8855]

You have to see the difference between saying the league is easier to score a lot in and saying the players are worse.

Drop the same players....Jordan or Kevin Johnson or whoever...into 2020. Whatever their exploits it would still be fair to say “They are getting to the basket so easily....these shooters are making them impossible to stay in front of”.

It wouldn’t make them worse. It would mean the league has designed itself to make it harder to stop incredible guards like them.

You can acknowledge the leagues tampering with the rules to make it easier and also that the players taking advantage are still incredibly talented.

You don’t have to pick.

[Akeem34TheDream]

There is a reason teams in 2003 shot more threes than teams in 93. And they shot even fewer in 83. Rule changes may speeded up the process but it was always going to happen. Teams were always going to spam 3s eventually. It makes sense most of the time(from a risk\value standpoint).

[insight]

I don't disagree with everything I just think people exaggerate. Kblaze for sure. Like I said too NBA fans more than any other sport are so player focused. It's more about MJ than it is about the Bulls. People use like 10-15 players as an example, or when you say something will point to like a handful of players to prove you wrong when were discussing the entire league. Thinking Jordan could easily score 100 points in today's playoffs is just insane for example. In '91 the league averaged 106.3 points. This year it was 111.8. In '17-18 it was 106.3. In 90-91 they were shooting almost 28 FT's per game compared to 23 this year.

Is the league less physical? Absolutely. Basketball has always been closer to say something like soccer than it is football/hockey etc. As physical as the league was, it was was nowhere near as physical as some people make it seem. For example nobody ever talks about how Phil/Jordan/Pippen basically bitched to the NBA league office about the Pistons. Saying it wasn't "basketball".

I've always said it's more about the 7th-12th guys than it is the superstars. The 1% will always stay the same. The difference in training, nutrition, and even shit like ease of access. Stuff like travel, technology, even shit like TMZ that doesn't allow players to run as wild as they did make the bottom half of rosters far more skilled/talented than it was 20 years ago. The elite players are always going to be elite but the bottom half of NBA rosters are drastically better in 2020 than they were in 1985.
Although I do agree training, nutrition and technology has had a huge impact on the game, the league was vastly more physical and violent previously but so was society. They had corporal punishment in school, it was completely normal for your coach to curse you out or ask you to commit a hard foul. I'm not saying it was better because several aspects of the modern NBA are more enjoyable to watch but it makes it hard to compare Mitchell scoring 57 in a playoff game to Micheal Jordan scoring 63. I do agree players are scrutinized with TMZ and social media like never before which is a challenge older players never had to deal with.

[guy]

I use to be kinda similar but what changed my mind big time was the FT's. People, myself included, would always bitch about how easy it was to get FT's. How if you placed player X into today's game they'd shoot 20 FT's a night. Than I actually looked at the numbers and realized teams today shoot less FT's on average than pretty much any other era. Seriously. Look it up. 17-18 was the lowest average FTA per game of All-Time.

I don't think its that simple and there's more factors in play here.

First off, teams have been taken around 30 3PA per game the last few years. That's compared to about 15 during the 2000s, less than 10 in the early 90s, and 5 or less in the 80s. Those 3s are taken in place of 2s. Nearly 40% of shots today are 3s vs less than 10% in the early 90s. And obviously, players won't get fouled nearly as often on 3s as they do 2s regardless of the rules.

Second, players are aware of the rules and adjust accordingly. Its not like defenses are going to be as physical as they were allowed to be in the 80s and 90s and just end up fouling all the time. They adjust. Teams back then weren't just purposefully fouling all the time, but they were allowed to be more physical. On the other hand, the less physicality allowed today means its easier to get into the lane cause of less physical resistance and make those shots.

This means a guy like Jordan or even someone like AI is likely getting a ton of free throws today, even more than they actually did, with their playing style and/or having a much easier time getting and making shots closer to the basket.

[NBAGOAT]

I don't think its that simple and there's more factors in play here.

First off, teams have been taken around 30 3PA per game the last few years. That's compared to about 15 during the 2000s, less than 10 in the early 90s, and 5 or less in the 80s. Those 3s are taken in place of 2s. Nearly 40% of shots today are 3s vs less than 10% in the early 90s. And obviously, players won't get fouled nearly as often on 3s as they do 2s regardless of the rules.

Second, players are aware of the rules and adjust accordingly. Its not like defenses are going to be as physical as they were allowed to be in the 80s and 90s and just end up fouling all the time. They adjust. Teams back then weren't just purposefully fouling all the time, but they were allowed to be more physical. On the other hand, the less physicality allowed today means its easier to get into the lane cause of less physical resistance and make those shots.

This means a guy like Jordan or even someone like AI is likely getting a ton of free throws today, even more than they actually did, with their playing style and/or having a much easier time getting and making shots closer to the basket.

well we have stats that dont quite support this as strong as you're arguing. shot charts go back to 97 now. 28.2% of shots are from 0-3 and 16.5% of shots are from 3-10. in 97, 35.1% came from 0-3 and 13.3% came from 3-10. A year like 04 which is historically tough for offenses, 29.7% came from 0-3 and 14.7% came from 3-10. The majority of 3pa have been taken from midrange and long 2s.

I agree a good part of guys finishing better is less physicality but the ft trade off has to be conceded too. More physicality means more fouls called. Also this goes back to the 3 pt shooting argument. less physicality isnt the only thing that opens up lanes, 3pt spacing is a factor too. It's hard for a big to guard the paint when he has to go out to 3pt line to guard his man and 1/3 of centers can shoot 3s right now

[DMAVS41]

This isn't about players being "better now"...at least not for me.

It is about the smartest strategy for offensive basketball given the rules of the game.

And, quite simply, it should be obvious to everyone that taking as few threes as teams did in the past eras in favor of long 2's...while effectively being easier to guard by shrinking the court...was not optimal strategy.

I honestly can't believe, even here, that anyone would argue otherwise.

For example, in 1998 roughly 21% of all shots were long 2's...last year, roughly 9% were. Again, of course stars and mid-range wizards as mentioned should continue to take those shots for all the reasons people have said. However, broadly speaking...taking a 3 instead of a long 2 is a far better strategy given the rules of the game.

So, how this relates to the defense bashing today...you have to realize that offenses would be harder to guard today even if the rules never changed...and this BS about how players couldn't shoot a bunch of 3's with the old rules doesn't make sense. Teams, with those old rules, were taking a ton of long 2's...it is easier to guard long 2's than it is 3's...

Not about players being better or worse...it is about teams adopting a better offensive strategy by actually caring about the expected value of shots and not just make or miss. I was slow to this...but at some point some of you need to just admit that teams play smarter offense now.

[Whoah10115]

Many of you suck.

[guy]

well we have stats that dont quite support this as strong as you're arguing. shot charts go back to 97 now. 28.2% of shots are from 0-3 and 16.5% of shots are from 3-10. in 97, 35.1% came from 0-3 and 13.3% came from 3-10. A year like 04 which is historically tough for offenses, 29.7% came from 0-3 and 14.7% came from 3-10. The majority of 3pa have been taken from midrange and long 2s.

I agree a good part of guys finishing better is less physicality but the ft trade off has to be conceded too. More physicality means more fouls called. Also this goes back to the 3 pt shooting argument. less physicality isnt the only thing that opens up lanes, 3pt spacing is a factor too. It's hard for a big to guard the paint when he has to go out to 3pt line to guard his man and 1/3 of centers can shoot 3s right now

WhereÂ’s the data? DonÂ’t see it on basketballreference anymore.

IÂ’m not totally following. Based on what you said, thereÂ’s still less shots being taken under 10 ft. Significantly less taken under 3 ft. So IÂ’m not sure where the contradiction is? Are you saying that the majority of the increase in 3PA has been at the expense of the midrange vs at the rim so its not that big of an impact? I guess thatÂ’s somewhat valid, but youÂ’re still more likely to get fouled on post-move or midrange shot then a 3PA also so thereÂ’s still an impact. Bottom line is more 3s is going to result in less fouls all else equal. We can argue about just how much of an impact it is but I think we can agree thatÂ’s the case, maybe enough to account for the ~2.5 FTA difference between now and 97.

3 pt spacing is definitely a factor, which has a lot to do with better shooters being out there. CanÂ’t disagree with you on that. But I donÂ’t necessarily think more physicality allowed all else equal is just going to automatically result in more or less fouls. Like I said, players adjust to what the rules allow. I do think depending on the individual player like Jordan, it would greatly benefit them today. JordanÂ’s probably taking more 3s today, but I donÂ’t think he just totally changes his approach to the game. HeÂ’s likely attacking the basket even more given the less resistance knowing that a much lesser level of physicality then before would result in a foul.

[DMAVS41]

WhereÂ’s the data? DonÂ’t see it on basketballreference anymore.

IÂ’m not totally following. Based on what you said, thereÂ’s still less shots being taken under 10 ft. Significantly less taken under 3 ft. So IÂ’m not sure where the contradiction is? Are you saying that the majority of the increase in 3PA has been at the expense of the midrange vs at the rim so its not that big of an impact? I guess thatÂ’s somewhat valid, but youÂ’re still more likely to get fouled on post-move or midrange shot then a 3PA also so thereÂ’s still an impact. Bottom line is more 3s is going to result in less fouls all else equal. We can argue about just how much of an impact it is but I think we can agree thatÂ’s the case, maybe enough to account for the ~2.5 FTA difference between now and 97.

3 pt spacing is definitely a factor, which has a lot to do with better shooters being out there. CanÂ’t disagree with you on that. But I donÂ’t necessarily think more physicality allowed all else equal is just going to automatically result in more or less fouls. Like I said, players adjust to what the rules allow. I do think depending on the individual player like Jordan, it would greatly benefit them today. JordanÂ’s probably taking more 3s today, but I donÂ’t think he just totally changes his approach to the game. HeÂ’s likely attacking the basket even more given the less resistance knowing that a much lesser level of physicality then before would result in a foul.

Here is the 98 vs 19 data.

In 1998:

0-3 = 30% of fga
3-10 = 17% of fga
10-16 = 16% of fga
long 2's = 21% of fga
threes = 16% of fga

In 2019:

0-3 = 29% of fga
3-10 = 16% of fga
10-16 = 10% of fga
long 2's = 9% of fga
threes = 36% of fga

I think it is pretty obvious that cutting down on long 2's in favor of 3's is much better offensive strategy.

[NBAGOAT]

WhereÂ’s the data? DonÂ’t see it on basketballreference anymore.

IÂ’m not totally following. Based on what you said, thereÂ’s still less shots being taken under 10 ft. Significantly less taken under 3 ft. So IÂ’m not sure where the contradiction is? Are you saying that the majority of the increase in 3PA has been at the expense of the midrange vs at the rim so its not that big of an impact? I guess thatÂ’s somewhat valid, but youÂ’re still more likely to get fouled on post-move or midrange shot then a 3PA also so thereÂ’s still an impact. Bottom line is more 3s is going to result in less fouls all else equal. We can argue about just how much of an impact it is but I think we can agree thatÂ’s the case, maybe enough to account for the ~2.5 FTA difference between now and 97.

3 pt spacing is definitely a factor, which has a lot to do with better shooters being out there. CanÂ’t disagree with you on that. But I donÂ’t necessarily think more physicality allowed all else equal is just going to automatically result in more or less fouls. Like I said, players adjust to what the rules allow. I do think depending on the individual player like Jordan, it would greatly benefit them today. JordanÂ’s probably taking more 3s today, but I donÂ’t think he just totally changes his approach to the game. HeÂ’s likely attacking the basket even more given the less resistance knowing that a much lesser level of physicality then before would result in a foul.

The splits are under team shooting on the season page. I agree Jordan doesn’t change his approach too much. I think it’s more likely he finishes super efficiently than gets like 15fta but again he’s one guy and an obvious scoring outlier so it’s not that helpful to use him to look at general league trends.

You got a point about getting more foul calls on post ups but I’m not as sure about a midrange shots. They’re still pull up and spot up jumpers.

I would argue 2.5fta actually pretty big and scoring 4% less in the paint and getting fouled a bit more on post ups isn’t enough to explain it though it’s admittedly hard to prove either way without specific stats.

Less physicality means less fouls. I also think it’s a shift in defensive philosophy where coaches/analytics front office people don’t want their guys fouling as much now because of foul trouble and the bonus, even if it means giving up a layup. Ik the pop coaching tree has encouraged not fouling since he started.

[dankok8]

Increasing physicality (i.e. reintroducing handchecking) would change the game and would blunt offenses but it's not so simple. See, with handchecking allowed, it was far easier to defend. MJ used to be able to drop 30-35 points a game and play terrific D and with same levels of effort today he could drop 35-40 points a game but his defensive impact would diminish. Today in order to be an elite defender, you really have to put in a lot of effort to move your feet, actually run around screens (can't push through them!) etc. These days, every decent guard could take a defender of the dribble because you can't touch him. Back then you could use your hands to help keep a dude in front of you. Today that's an automatic foul outside of the paint. Anyone who's ever played street ball knows handchecking is huge.

So with modern rules... offense is easier but defense is harder.

[Clifton]

Harden might break the record. He's playing in an empty gym and he has to win these games by himself. Dream scenario for him.

Unfortunately he's going against such a scrappy, competitive team. Paul's leadership and grit are contagious. Paul's Rockets were the only team that ever played the KD warriors competitively, and they did it twice.

[Gohan]

Iverson could of broke the record in 2003 but he stopped gunnin

[Kblaze8855]

In the week since this we have had two people score 50 in the same playoff game(never happened) and Luka have I believe two games that have not happened since the 60s.

[Phoenix]

63 around the corner. Between current rules and playing in a neutral bubble with no HCA, no travel, these guys can just play. The only thing left at this point is for two guys on the same team to drop 50.

[Shogon]

In the week since this we have had two people score 50 in the same playoff game(never happened) and Luka have I believe two games that have not happened since the 60s.

:facepalm:facepalm

This is why it is becoming increasingly difficult to compare players of today's era to past eras... not that it wouldn't have already been difficult enough because that's the nature of life...

But between rule changes, general softness increasing and the massive adoption league wide of the 3 point shot, you can't compare the past to today. It's essentially impossible to compare them in a fair, just and honest fashion.


You basically can only judge players based on the era in which they play and not compare them to other eras, if you are being honest... for a plethora of reasons.

[StrongLurk]

Okay this is getting ridiculous. Defense is so bad in the bubble and the "gym" setting is lowering the pressure that normal playoffs put on players.

[Phoenix]

:facepalm:facepalm

This is why it is becoming increasingly difficult to compare players of today's era to past eras... not that it wouldn't have already been difficult enough because that's the nature of life...

But between rule changes, general softness increasing and the massive adoption league wide of the 3 point shot, you can't compare the past to today. It's essentially impossible to compare them in a fair, just and honest fashion.


You basically can only judge players based on the era in which they play and not compare them to other eras, if you are being honest... for a plethora of reasons.

I've always tried to do that anyway. Measure players by who is in front of them. Last week I made a thread about Dame and Iverson based on a first take segment. As Kblaze correctly pointed out, these guys primes being separated by 20 years are in such different leagues now that it's almost impossible to find any point to fairly compare them. Theres certainly no point drawing numbers into it.

The further we go it does make rankings much harder but I tend to use a tiered system.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Joke defense. Like the first game, Mitchell hit tough shots.

But the commentary also talked about the EASY looks like he had. Bad close outs and open midrange from miscommunication on the switch.

Mitchell's skill is through the roof AND he's going to score. When Murray goes for 50 too, though, we might have to pump the brakes.

[Roundball_Rock]

Joke defense. Like the first game, Mitchell hit tough shots.

But the commentary also talked about the EASY looks like he had. Bad close outs and open midrange from miscommunication on the switch.

Mitchell's skill is through the roof AND he's going to score. When Murray goes for 50 too, though, we might have to pump the brakes.

Look at the oRTG's for the top offensive teams in the playoffs:

Utah 134
Toronto 122
Denver 121
Clippers 118
Mavs 118

Joke indeed. :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Look at the oRTG's for the top offensive teams in the playoffs:

Utah 134
Toronto 122
Denver 121
Clippers 118
Mavs 118

Joke indeed. :lol

Yup.

And I've heard the argument on three point influx. No one denies teams today shoot more of them or that they create more space. All common knowledge.

The problem is when using "ORTG" to back that argument. And using it to say everything is "better" now. ORTG isn't just a measure for how many threes you hit or take. There's more to it like orebound rate, assist and foul rate, possesion rate and free throw rate, etc. Then its recycled again by opponent weight. All of that is altered by style of play and in the era you're playing in.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yup.

And I've heard the argument on three point influx. No one denies teams today shoot more of them or that they create more space. All common knowledge.

The problem is when using "ORTG" to back that argument. And using it to say everything is "better" now. ORTG isn't just a measure for how many threes you hit or take. There's more to it like orebound rate, assist and foul rate, possesion rate and free throw rate, etc. Then its recycled again by opponent weight. All of that is altered by style of play and in the era you're playing in.

The common theme: people tend to ignore nuance, especially for stats they don't understand.

[DMAVS41]

LOL...I've never argued that everything is "better" now.

I simply pointed out that offenses are much harder to defend today than they were in the previous eras being referenced...while immediately agreeing that the changes in rules have made life easier for offenses today.

For some reason, many of you are incapable of accepting this reality and continue to think that defending a team that takes 4 threes a game and doesn't space the floor...is as hard as it is to guard the teams today...regardless of the rules.

Yes, it is all connected, but there are objectively better or worse ways to play basketball based on the rules. And taking a handful of threes a game is objectively not the optimal way to play offense given the math of the game and the capabilities of players.

But, please, tell me what is so outrageous about this...

[kentatm]

Right.

Of course it isn't just bad defense now. Yes, there are some rules that make life easier on offense today than in the past, but teams in the past were far easier to guard. Imagine how good defense could be, even with the softer rules currently, if teams were taking roughly 7 threes a game like they did a long time ago. At times, even less...


The league average for 3s per game in 2000 was 13.7. For this last season it was 34.1. https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

People used to think it was crazy when teams like the Mavs, Kings, and Suns were shooting 20-25 3s a game.


https://i.imgur.com/vxJAN9g.png

[DMAVS41]

The league average for 3s per game in 2000 was 13.7. For this last season it was 34.1.

People used to think it was crazy when teams like the Mavs, Kings, and Suns were shooting 20 3s a game.


https://i.imgur.com/vxJAN9g.png

I know.

I thought it was crazy and honestly bought in to the old school mentality against it. Truth is, it is just way better for EV on the shots themselves and for making the team much harder to defend. I pulled a random box score from 98...and the Bulls played a game in which they attempted only 4 threes and didn't even make one.

[tpols]

The league average for 3s per game in 2000 was 13.7. For this last season it was 34.1. https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

People used to think it was crazy when teams like the Mavs, Kings, and Suns were shooting 20-25 3s a game.


https://i.imgur.com/vxJAN9g.png

And the funniest part of it... they were the best offensive teams.

By ORTG which is what the league has always used to measure offensive effectiveness and rank teams.

[NBAGOAT]

And the funniest part of it... they were the best offensive teams.

By ORTG which is what the league has always used to measure offensive effectiveness and rank teams.

Teams that took up the 3 more than other teams tended to outperform expectations. They usually didn’t win outside of the 90s rockets because they didn’t have the best coaching

[DMAVS41]

Teams that took up the 3 more than other teams tended to outperform expectations. They usually didn’t win outside of the 90s rockets because they didn’t have the best coaching

And, regardless of how good your offense is, you still have to be able to defend.

[NBAGOAT]

Really good article on the history https://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12993098/nba-35-year-war-3-pointer

[tpols]

Teams that took up the 3 more than other teams tended to outperform expectations. They usually didn’t win outside of the 90s rockets because they didn’t have the best coaching

Thats sort of what the whole theory of what is going on right now is about... 3's taken over huge sample size return more on their investment than jumpshot 2's. They also widen the driving lanes for stars. People back then were still stuck in a "back in my day..." mindset even though the evidence was right in front of them. Teams could outperform their expectations with heavy use of the 3ball because it returns more points per possession over the course of games. Role players taking 3s especially is a good thing. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, and Robert Horry took more 3's than Kobe in the 2001 playoffs.

[FKAri]

Thats sort of what the whole theory of what is going on right now is about... 3's taken over huge sample size return more on their investment than jumpshot 2's. They also widen the driving lanes for stars. People back then were still stuck in a "back in my day..." mindset even though the evidence was right in front of them. Teams could outperform their expectations with heavy use of the 3ball because it returns more points per possession over the course of games. Role players taking 3s especially is a good thing. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, and Robert Horry took more 3's than Kobe in the 2001 playoffs.

The NBA's a copycat league. Jobs are on the line. Not just management and non-player staff but players as well. An otherwise treadmill team is not going to get players to buy in and hard commit to some experimental strategy that could ruin their career trajectory if it bombs out. Heck it's hard to get guys to commit to anything when they're not on a team with championship aspirations. As a result teams go with what's worked in the past and settle for mediocrity. And fans accept it.

[NBAGOAT]

The NBA's a copycat league. Jobs are on the line. Not just management and non-player staff but players as well. An otherwise treadmill team is not going to get players to buy in and hard commit to some experimental strategy that could ruin their career trajectory if it bombs out. Heck it's hard to get guys to commit to anything when they're not on a team with championship aspirations. As a result teams go with what's worked in the past and settle for mediocrity. And fans accept it.

you need an owner to buy in. Based on moneyball, that's what happened with the john henry and the sox after they saw how well the athletics did. Instantly won a title and that helped a lot

[Overdrive]

Thats sort of what the whole theory of what is going on right now is about... 3's taken over huge sample size return more on their investment than jumpshot 2's. They also widen the driving lanes for stars. People back then were still stuck in a "back in my day..." mindset even though the evidence was right in front of them. Teams could outperform their expectations with heavy use of the 3ball because it returns more points per possession over the course of games. Role players taking 3s especially is a good thing. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, and Robert Horry took more 3's than Kobe in the 2001 playoffs.

The 3 isn't the problem and also role players shooting it well isn't. The Spurs in '14 had a quasi equal opportunity offense havily relying on 3s and it was some of the most beautiful basketball I've seen in the NBA. They obliberated the Heat like they were some lottery team.

The problem is that the rulechanges didn't create such teams. They create teams that don't actually play well, but would still bombard you with 3s out of PnR created kickouts. Totally different type of game. The result - high amount of 3s - might be the same, but the offense isn't equally created. Most teams heavily rely on on ball screening and role players camping for their opportunities when the helpless defense gets sucked in.

It's a shit brand of ball mostly.

[Kblaze8855]

Two 50s never happened in history. Outside chance it happens twice this series. Murray has 50 and Mitchell I think 45 or so.

[Kblaze8855]

So they combined for only 94 this game.


At this point it has to be bubble comfort or something right?

This isn’t normal shooting. Lack of a crowd that impactful?

[NBAGOAT]

3pt shooting hasnt gone up much in the bubble(ft shooting has). kawhi should be better and facing a meh defense but not like he's scoring 45 every game. Think it's mainly just a ridiculous hot streak and they legitimately got better with the time off almost like the bubble was a new season. Think both have the shot form to shoot 40% from 3 long term, obviously this isnt sustainable. Both are 23 and mitchell started playing seriously in like high school.

[DMAVS41]

3pt shooting hasnt gone up much in the bubble(ft shooting has). kawhi should be better and facing a meh defense but not like he's scoring 45 every game. Think it's mainly just a ridiculous hot streak and they legitimately got better with the time off almost like the bubble was a new season. Think both have the shot form to shoot 40% from 3 long term, obviously this isnt. Both are 23 and mitchell started playing seriously in like high school.

The hot streak is now officially insane if it wasn't already.

Coming into this game...Murray was shooting 73% on long 2's and 52% on threes. He just dropped 50 on 24 shots...made 7/9 threes. Just absolutely nuts the kind of shots he's drilling.

[Shooter]

3pt shooting hasnt gone up much in the bubble(ft shooting has). kawhi should be better and facing a meh defense but not like he's scoring 45 every game. Think it's mainly just a ridiculous hot streak and they legitimately got better with the time off almost like the bubble was a new season. Think both have the shot form to shoot 40% from 3 long term, obviously this isnt. Both are 23 and mitchell started playing seriously in like high school.

Also the # of threes they are taking now

Jamal has taken 54 threes in the six playoff games, averaging 9 per game
Mitchell has taken 56 threes in the six playoff games, averaging 9.3 per game

Jamal in the regular season only took 5.9 per game and Mitchell only took 6.9 per game.

Jamal increased his 3point shots by 50%, and Donovan increased his by 26%, plus they are also shooting red hot from three in the bubble.

[StrongLurk]

This stuff just doesn't make sense right now.

Did Kobe or KD EVER have a playoff series like Murray and Mitchell are having? Just doesn't seem right.

[Shooter]

This stuff just doesn't make sense right now.

Did Kobe or KD EVER have a playoff series like Murray and Mitchell are having? Just doesn't seem right.

Jamal is taking 9 threes per game on 57.4%
Mitchell is taking 9.3 threes per game on 55.3%

Let that sink in. Both shooting 9 per game on 55% That is insane. That alone is worth 15.5 points per game.

[NuggetsFan]

This stuff just doesn't make sense right now.

Did Kobe or KD EVER have a playoff series like Murray and Mitchell are having? Just doesn't seem right.

I never saw Kobe play this well against Denver. Nuggets are playing shitty defense. No doubt. Mitchell is draining everything tho. Open or contested. Kobe destroyed the Nuggets. I watched him miss open shots tho. If you gave Mitchell 10 open 3's this series he's hitting 8 of them.

[DMAVS41]

I never saw Kobe play this well against Denver. Nuggets are playing shitty defense. No doubt. Mitchell is draining everything tho. Open or contested. Kobe destroyed the Nuggets. I watched him miss open shots tho. If you gave Mitchell 10 open 3's this series he's hitting 8 of them.

It's not perfect, but comparing the league from 09 to today...

In 09 the average offensive team rating was 108.3 and today is 110.6

In 09 the average team TS% was 54.4% and today is 56.5%

So it is definitely easier to score today, but again...part of that difference has nothing to do with defense. In fact, it might have very little to do with defense...offense today is better. Teams have cut out long 2's and take more 3's...which not only gives you more points, but makes you harder to defend. In 09, the average team took 18 threes per game...today they take 34.

And that seems to be what is so hard for everyone to grasp. It isn't that players are better now...I don't even care to argue that, but it is clear that they offensive strategy is...and it is that strategy, imo, that is leading to the increases in scoring and efficiency in large part. Not all, but in large part...

[NuggetsFan]

It's not perfect, but comparing the league from 09 to today...

In 09 the average offensive team rating was 108.3 and today is 110.6

In 09 the average team TS% was 54.4% and today is 56.5%

So it is definitely easier to score today, but again...part of that difference has nothing to do with defense. In fact, it might have very little to do with defense...offense today is better. Teams have cut out long 2's and take more 3's...which not only gives you more points, but makes you harder to defend. In 09, the average team took 18 threes per game...today they take 34.

And that seems to be what is so hard for everyone to grasp. It isn't that players are better now...I don't even care to argue that, but it is clear that they offensive strategy is...and it is that strategy, imo, that is leading to the increases in scoring and efficiency in large part. Not all, but in large part...

Ignoring numbers, strategy, era or whatever ... I just don't get how you can watch these games and blame anything other than skill. Like easy buckets happen. It's basketball. Missed rotation, going under a screen, a lazy play or two. It happens. Mitchell/Murray are nailing some insane shots right now that I honestly can't remember ever seeing. I wouldn't even be shocked by a 6-21 game in game 7 by Murray.

Somebody needs to GIF Murray's long 2's. The step backs. I don't think people grasp how difficult of a shot those are. It's almost like a handful of players have made step back shots look easy. That if you step back from 3 it's "open". What are you supposed to do when a player step backs like that? Or pulls up randomly? I've torn into the Nuggets defense this series, but it's not like Utah isn't hitting ridiculous shots. Same goes for Murray vs Utah.

[DMAVS41]

Ignoring numbers, strategy, era or whatever ... I just don't get how you can watch these games and blame anything other than skill. Like easy buckets happen. It's basketball. Missed rotation, going under a screen, a lazy play or two. It happens. Mitchell/Murray are nailing some insane shots right now that I honestly can't remember ever seeing. I wouldn't even be shocked by a 6-21 game in game 7 by Murray.

Somebody needs to GIF Murray's long 2's. The step backs. I don't think people grasp how difficult of a shot those are. It's almost like a handful of players have made step back shots look easy. That if you step back from 3 it's "open". What are you supposed to do when a player step backs like that? Or pulls up randomly? I've torn into the Nuggets defense this series, but it's not like Utah isn't hitting ridiculous shots. Same goes for Murray vs Utah.

Exactly.

When you combine a more optimal individual and team offensive strategy with the kind of skill level these guys have...plus a hot streak...you get something pretty insane. And I think just enjoying two awesome young players playing great is the answer.

But no...everything has to be "this era is garbage"...

[NuggetsFan]

Exactly.

When you combine a more optimal individual and team offensive strategy with the kind of skill level these guys have...plus a hot streak...you get something pretty insane. And I think just enjoying two awesome young players playing great is the answer.

But no...everything has to be "this era is garbage"...

I think it's because the NBA is built so much off player fans unlike other sports. Edmonton fans are bigger Oiler fans than they are Gretzky. Alot of Bulls fans are bigger Jordan fans. Patriot fans are bigger Pats fans than they are Brady fans. For the NBA it boils down to LeBron vs Jordan or whatever player driven narrative is happening.

I personally enjoy the mid 00's the most. I loved the ISO style basketball. Iverson was my favorite player, and watching Melo and his jab steps for me personally is more entertaining than the 3 point shoot out's that were seeing.

Mitchell/Murray are playing basketball at a comically high level and hitting shots that are just absurd. I don't care what era it is. Nobody is defending these shots. Murray's layups would be contested at your local YMCA. He's not a freak athlete. Utah has defended him fine. He's just drilling step back's, pull up's, and when he's left open from deep? He's drilling it. People act like open 3's are a lock .. when there not. I mean in the regular season he bricked more open 3's than he hit lol