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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's?????[/QUOTE] ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not saying that 3's are always better. That would be an absurd opinion.

What I'm saying...and have been saying...is that teams should not be taking more long 2's than 3's...on the whole.

In a specific game or something? Sure, I could think of circumstances that would make that actually better.

But on the whole in terms of the league averages? Nah, taking more long 2's was stupid.

That is what I'm arguing...and very clearly for most of the last 40 years...teams did not have this figured out...and it made the life of defenses easier than it is now.

And then when you follow that thinking through...you realize that most defenses in the past were giving up roughly the same amount of points per possession (outside of 98-04) and some other years while facing offenses easier to guard.

So, like I said from the jump, when I hear defenses suck now...I need to know exactly what that relative comparison is to. Because it sure as hell isn't the 80's or early 90's...when teams were scoring at a very similar rate despite taking well below the optimal amount of 3's...and were taking way too many long 2's.

That was where this started.

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

[url]https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8[/url].

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



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

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

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

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

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

That clippers vs Laker game! Yeah, that's true. It happens sometimes. It happens more in the playoffs than it does in the regular season with the hand checking. It depends at the leisure of the refs. But it's a foul. And sometimes they call it. Players and commentators would say something like "They are letting them play tonight" or whatever. Sometimes they don't call defensive 3 sec unless a player or coach comment on it.

But it's a foul. At one hand, you'll let the players play on the other, you'll get fouls like:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-TFrAMIoE[/url]

When LeBron tries to drive to the rim, PJ Tucker is all over him. Stopping his momentum with the elbow to the hip and everything. He looks a the ref and ask for the foul cuz James Harden and CP3 were getting that. But similar to Shaq, the refs would treat LeBron differently. And Harden and CP3 are better at selling it. They were articles on it, on the game, on James Harden too. But everyone knows the inconsistency of the refs.

[url]https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lebron-james-lakers-rockets-no-hands-defense-james-harden-video[/url]

It's almost a little unfair comparison because of the RS vs playoff games. Like here:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m28s[/url]
the handchecking on MJ should be a foul called today.

And here:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m40s[/url]
a similar play where Harden got "tripped" up. But the refs made a mistake, and you see that play go either way. A foul or no foul.

But there was a 70s game where some teams were doing full pressure and hand checking at the hip, and I was shocked. Like even though the 80s and early 90s could kind'a do that, it wasn't done normally. They usually don't bother until they get inside the 3pt line. And if you are a good shooter. Or if they really try to force a turnover.

But the point is, yeah. You'll still find some hand checking in today's game. It depends on how the refs call it. It's the same throughout basketball life. It just with nowadays, there are more rules to follow when it comes to contact. And the freedom of movement thing, eliminates some of the tricks players could do of defending screens. They can't really hold the screener or hold anybody in general I think. Sometimes the refs may not call it or miss it, but if they see it and they choose to call it, then it's a foul. And it wasn't like two years ago?

But me and you both agree that the lack of spacing is the main thing.

I dont see the need to debate that the league was more physical in the 80s-90s. The game was played at a shorter range, handchecking and harder fouls were allowed compared to today. This is not necessarily a knock on todays game. The game changed, it called for a different brand of gameplay. Less physicality, more outside shooting, and more space. Why does this generation have to be best at everything and can not be criticized or commented on in any way?

Game back then presented its own challenges players then, as much as the game now presents challenges to the players now. Was is jerry wests fault that he played in an eta where they could only palm the ball? Is there any doubt that if jerry west were born today he would be able to play with better handles than what he had in the 60s?

What would be worth noting is how much does one great player stand out from his peers in his era, and how he is able to impact the game.

[QUOTE=Airupthere]I dont see the need to debate that the league was more physical in the 80s-90s. The game was played at a shorter range, handchecking and harder fouls were allowed compared to today. This is not necessarily a knock on todays game. The game changed, it called for a different brand of gameplay. Less physicality, more outside shooting, and more space. Why does this generation have to be best at everything and can not be criticized or commented on in any way?

Game back then presented its own challenges players then, as much as the game now presents challenges to the players now. Was is jerry wests fault that he played in an eta where they could only palm the ball? Is there any doubt that if jerry west were born today he would be able to play with better handles than what he had in the 60s?

What would be worth noting is how much does one great player stand out from his peers in his era, and how he is able to impact the game.[/QUOTE]

It's the comparison from one era to another. Doc Rivers said to Rondo one time that he would have a tougher time back then than he does now. Wilt told MJ one time that the league changed and it's easier for MJ now than it was back then, where they made to rules to slow down from Wilt to dominate.

A few commentators now complain about how certain foul calls are called today that simple "touch" fouls that weren't called back in their day.

For us, we sometimes debate about the stats, and whatever or not they are impressive given the rules change or not.

It's natural it seems to compare. But the players themselves are not at fault. And the eras are too different to compare. The playstyles, the rules, pacing, the coaching. As you said, it's better to acknowledge which player stands out the most out of the era. It does seem that superstars could adapt, no matter the rules, but to compare stats across eras I feel like is pretty tough.

[QUOTE=keep-itreal][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STr5YGeG4TA[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcktdn1WnaU[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekHYxTHEHf0[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zONvMKkIpwA[/url]

the game was ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL back then, players were like gladiators back then

:roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]
Saw those vids a while ago. Classic:oldlol:

Muh 90's defense doe

LeBron just Akron hammered the toughest player in the league. Fvcking 90’s lol