.
[B]Number of 45+ point games against Top 5 Defenses:[/B]
Lebron: 3
Kobe: 7
MJ: 26
Source: [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=255273[/url]
Printable View
.
[B]Number of 45+ point games against Top 5 Defenses:[/B]
Lebron: 3
Kobe: 7
MJ: 26
Source: [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=255273[/url]
[QUOTE=Smoke117]True. Jordan did have his best seasons vs weak, *****, pathetic, laughable, 80s defenses.[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't say all defenses from that era were laughable, but on average, none were even comparable to the 2k and on era. like.. the difference is clear as day.
Weak defence era... Pointless comparisons
Finals losses.
bronze 3
Jordan 0
[QUOTE=3ball]It should be fun to watch Jordan's statistical advantage of Lebron WIDEN as time goes on and as Lebron keeps needing more and more nights off.. :D[/QUOTE]
Why is that fun?
[QUOTE=mehyaM24][B][COLOR="Red"][U][I]what coaches say[/I][/U][/COLOR][/B]:
Three key participants in the storied Lakers-Celtics rivalry who still hold lofty positions in the game
[QUOTE=mehyaM24]i wouldn't say all defenses from that era were laughable, but on average, none were even comparable to the 2k and on era. like.. the difference is clear as day.[/QUOTE]
lol...you can't take a post I make in a 3ball thread seriously... :biggums: He's a clown...and a clown entertains you; Not the other way around.
.
[B]Why Pace Was Faster Back When Teams Only Shot 2-Pointers[/B]
The only reason teams run offense is to get OPEN SHOTS.. Two-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so they requires less offense to be ran, which sped the game up in previous eras and results in higher scoring.. In general, less setup is required to get a 2-pointer than a 3-pointer.
[I]Otoh, generally, 3-pointers must be SET UP by running offense.. and in today's game, a perpetual pursuit of 3-pointers is necessary on every play to maintain the spacing... this bogs the game down bigtime, results in less scoring, and results in less natural, random on-court movements as well (it looks more staged instead).[/I]
Ultimately, the 3-pointers provide spacing, but that spacing takes TIME to both set up and maintain.. However, if the 3-point line was removed tomorrow, teams wouldn't need to invest this time.. Instead, they would start running up and down like they used to, playing instinctively and settling for contested two's that required skill to obtain and convert.. Also, players wouldn't be required to camp behind the 3-point line or keep the lane clear (assuming defensive 3 seconds was also removed), so on-court movements would also look more organic and less staged.
Historically, pace has declined with the increase in 3-point shooting.
.
[QUOTE=mehytaM24]
ORtg says more teams in the 90s scored more points per 100 possessions - what teams average on each end
[/QUOTE]
Today's Milwaukee Bucks have lower (better) DRtg than the 1989 Bad Boys, but obviously, that doesn't mean it's harder to score on the Bucks.. Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg (they're the same number) were slightly higher in previous eras because of the way the stat is calculated - the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras had higher offensive rebounding and FT rates, which increases ORtg and DRtg in the calculation.
On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers, which have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, and therefore [I]decrease[/I] ORtg and DRtg in the calculation.
The link below goes to a summary table of league-wide data from basketball-reference.com.. The last 6 columns show various factors that drive ORtg (including offensive rebounding rate and FT rate).
The table clearly shows how the significantly higher offensive rebounding and FT rates of previous eras (due to the much higher proportion of two-pointers) contributed to higher ORtg and DRtg.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html[/url]
The table speaks for itself - pretty much shows literally everything, including how a higher number of 3-pointers is correlated with [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11073242&postcount=23][u]slower pace[/u][/url].
[QUOTE=mehyaM24][B][COLOR="Red"][U][I]what coaches say[/I][/U][/COLOR][/B]:
Three key participants in the storied Lakers-Celtics rivalry who still hold lofty positions in the game
.
[B][SIZE="3"]MJ's Stats in Each Playoff Series vs. Top 5 Defense:[/SIZE][/B]
MIL 1985 1st Rd (59-23, #2 ranked defense.. 29.3 pts.. 5.8 rebs.. 8.6 assists.. 56.5% TS.. 43.6% FG)
BOS 1986 1st Rd (67-15, #1 ranked defense.. 43.7.. 6.3.. 5.7.. 58.4% TS.. 50.5% FG)
CLE 1988 1st Rd (42-40, #5 ranked defense... 45.2.. 5.4.. 4.8.. 63.2% TS.. 55.9% FG)
DET 1988 2nd Rd (54-28, #2-ranked defense... 27.8.. 8.8.. 4.6.. 54.9% TS.. 49.1% FG)
CLE 1989 1st Rd (57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)
DET 1989 ECF (62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)
DET 1990 ECF (62-20, #2 ranked defense... 32.1.. 7.1.. 6.3.. 56.6% TS.. 46.7% FG)
DET 1991 ECF (52-30, #4 ranked defense.. 29.8.. 5.3.. 7.0.. 64.6% TS.. 53.5% FG)
LAL 1991 Finals (58-24, #5 ranked defense... 31.2.. 6.6.. 11.4.. 61.2% TS.. 55.2% FG)
POR 1992 Finals (57-25, #3 ranked defense.. 35.8.. 4.8.. 6.5.. 61.7% TS.. 52.6% FG)
NYK 1992 ECF (51-31, #2 ranked defense.. 31.3.. 5.7.. 4.3.. 53.3% TS.. 47.7% FG)
NYK 1993 ECF (60-22, #1 ranked defense.. 32.2.. 6.2.. 7.0.. 52.2% TS.. 40.4% FG)
[B]BASEBALL (AA Outfielder):[/B] .202 BA.. 436 AB.. 88 H.. 3 HR.. 46 R.. 51 RBI
NYK 1996 ECF (47-35.. 4th ranked defense.. 36.0.. 4.8.. 4.4.. 53.4% TS.. 44.2% FG)
SEA 1996 Finals (64-18.. #2 ranked defense.. 27.3.. 5.3.. 4.2.. 53.8%.. 41.5% FG)
ATL 1997 2nd Rd (56-26.. #3 ranked defense.. 26.6.. 10.2.. 5.2.. 50.6% TS.. 45.4% FG)
MIA 1997 ECF (61-21.. #1 ranked defense.. 30.2.. 8.6.. 2.6.. 47.5% TS.. 38.7% FG)
IND 1998 ECF (58-24.. #5 ranked defense.. 31.7.. 5.7.. 4.1.. 55.6% TS.. 46.7% FG)
If you're going to rip LeBron, I don't think career stats is the way to go. The guys stats are insane.
Keep it simple and do what the other trolls do, and just post 2/5.
[QUOTE=sekachu]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOS1qNTWb70[/url]
Are you sure?:biggums:
[/QUOTE]
That vid shows a random game with the standard double and triple-teaming Jordan faced, [I]but it also shows how much harder Jordan was to double team[/I] - Jordan was always playing off-ball and he scored most of his points off-ball, so he wasn't the easy target to double team that ball-dominant players are.
Of course, in today's game, the paint and at-rim percentages of all players are inflated compared to previous eras, due to the spacing and rule changes [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]designed to[/u][/url] make penetration easier and open up the middle of the floor.
Otoh, in Jordan's day, defenders waited in the paint on penetration and could help from closer distances on the post because there was no spacing and paint-camping was legal.. all coaches in previous eras foolishly ran offenses that didn't shoot threes and positioned players close to the rim, which [i]activated[/i] legal-paint camping, as stipulated in [url=http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html][COLOR="Blue"]Rule 2b[/COLOR][/url] of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.
The legal paint-camping, no spacing, and much higher physicality made for a tougher brand of basketball and superior paint defense than what we have today.
.
3ball, what do you take from this video?
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_eCnTNt1Q[/url]
[QUOTE=hahaitme]3ball, what do you take from this video?
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_eCnTNt1Q[/url][/QUOTE]
Its wrong because it disagrees with his opinion