"Back in the 90's, the game was more tough and physical"

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]When in the 90's though? 91 is a whole lot different than 98.

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

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

Completely different.

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

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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I agree that for the most part long threes are better than long 2's. I wonder what the percentages are for the post from than to now though. Seems like gaurds would post up alot more back then compared to now. And its it not like im saying threes would be down to 10 a game or something. Its at 33 now i believe and i was saying the rules would make it low 20's or so. Im not sure what it would be if they brought the old rules back but i know it would be less. The League would adjust like they always do and they would probably get back to alot more post play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so why has college basketball shot around the same amount of threes for the last 20 plus years? Perimeter defefence in college has always been like the old nba rules to this day defenders can still grab, body, hand check and aggressively fight through screens. For the last 20 years the best college teams have shot in the 20's from threes. Why havnt they increased the amount of threes they take?[/QUOTE]

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

Forget the why for a second though.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I have no idea. I don't know anything about college basketball. Not sure how that is related to the NBA.

Forget the why for a second though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]fair enough i watch alot of college ball but if you dont i wont bother going in on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.[/QUOTE]
Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this.

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

I think that is a fair point.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, I'm not arguing Webber should have been taking mostly 3's or anything...and I'm of course assuming he could shoot them well enough, but he could really shoot for a player of his size...and took a ton of long 2's...just seems like he should have been shooting some 3's rather than really none based on what we know now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23][B]The only problem with this is that if more three equals better than the teams that shoot the most threes should essentially win alot more and they dont.[/B] I think the only team to win while shooting more threes than anyone is the 90's rockets. Alot of the other teams that won chips arnt even close to the top three point shooting teams. The rockets the last couple years shoot way more than anyone and they still lost even though they had an mvp player and another atg great player along with a great supporting cast.

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

I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

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

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

This is not a point.

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

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

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