Scuzzy killing it ITT:oldlol:
Printable View
Scuzzy killing it ITT:oldlol:
Defense was too fierce back then.
[QUOTE=egokiller]1. People who saw it can reflect on it and appreciate it.
2. People who didn't see it can complain, feel insecure, and wonder what it might have been like to see it.[/QUOTE]
Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:
[QUOTE=Showtime80']LOL at these isolated clips!!! Go look at ANY clips from the perimeter manufactured stars after the 2005 defensive highjack and you see a red carpet stroll down the lane when the NBA basically neutered defenses.
Here's a clip of Steve Nash, a guy who played from 1997 to 2014 and won two MVP's in 2006 and 07 thanks to the rule changes the NBA put in, breaking it down to a basic level and confirming how people like David Stern, Rob Thorn and Jerry Colangelo to name a few altered all the defensive rules starting from the mid 90's (after the panic of the MJ’s first retirement and the abysmal 1994 season) to the late 2000's to prop up the mid 90's and onward crop of flawed fundamentals, IQ deficient and AAU poisoned players who didn’t have the classic fundamental knowledge on how to properly attach defenses and started concentrating on their athleticism above everything else. Fast forward to minute 14:38:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHN3d9bpJ-g&t=915s[/url]
Here's the excerpt:
Steve Nash says about Grant Hill and the old school game "It was a different game then. They could put two hands on you, they could forearm you, they could knock you down, it was SUPER PHYSICAL and for him to be able to do it in an era where there were less possessions and it was LIKE WRESTLING out there!!!
Bill Simmons: "And then David Stern CHANGED THE RULES so you could succeed, you were the IMPETUS!!!"
Steve Nash: "Laughs! Changed my career. It think David Stern saw me and said this poor kid, if they can put their hands on him HE'S COOKED!!!"
Here's Vince Carter who's still playing in this crap soft league talking about how most of the guys today would not be as good with the physicality of yesteryear:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk4xFL011XE[/url]
LOL!!!! A little tidbit for the millennial dweebs, the NBA was already going soft by the time Nash and Carter joined in 97 and 99! Imagine what it was like in the late 80's early 90's when Michael started his reign.
For an extra here’s a final video of the Bad Boy Pistons playing defense against Michael Jordan and the Bulls with illegal defense rules which actually gave more freedom to the defense because nobody knew how to interpret them:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE&t=303s[/url]
Look at the Piston defenders basically IGNORING anybody who's standing at the 3 point line with guys like Laimbeer and Salley playing free safety down low NOT GUARDING ANYBODY. There is also some double teaming without the ball action for the people who think you can only do that know.
Can you imagine LeBald, Harden, Dumbrook, SImmons, Curry, Durant or any of the modern day rule enhanced "stars" in place of Michael on the late 80's Pistons trying to generate offense in the paint with NO SPACING, hand checking and NO FLAGRANT FOULS!!! They would Fed Ex their soft as!es in a DeLorean to 2019 within one quarter of that atmosphere.[/QUOTE]
Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards.
reggie miller's success against the knicks is ok evidence someone like curry or harden would actually be pretty annoying for them to guard(yes they have worse stats but could be pretty respectable). I mean curry is another lvl at shooting contested 3's and harden is another lvl compared to miller at foul drawing.
The Knicks were a goat lvl defense but their one weakness is their opponents go to the ft line like 30 times a game. It doesnt matter what era it is, you play that physical and teams are going get ft's lol. It also is harder for 90s defenses to guard someone who's so good coming off screens and shooting 3's from 30 with only a couple feet of space. For reference the rockets in a higher pace league that older fans love referencing only get 29.6 fta/game and the next highest in the league is 26.7.
[QUOTE=FKAri]Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:
Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards.[/QUOTE] Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.[/QUOTE]
pnr offense worked well at times in the 90's and early 00's if you had the personnel. On the flip side illegal screens werent called often. Most teams just preferred to play through the post however or using isolation. And yes it's obvious players are better from 3 now, a lot of contested ones are made. Compare wat percent of guards who had the ability to shoot like 35% on 3+attempts 15 years ago even to the percent now.
Edit: and it's hard to figt through screens consistently. teams had similar dilemma back then but you could pretty easily go to a 3v2 defense because there was one or two guys on the court who you're happy talking a 20 footer.
[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]pnr offense worked well at times in the 90's and early 00's if you had the personnel. On the flip side illegal screens werent called often. Most teams just preferred to play through the post however or using isolation. And yes it's obvious players are better from 3 now, a lot of contested ones are made. Compare wat percent of guards who had the ability to shoot like 35% on 3+attempts 15 years ago even to the percent now.
Edit: and it's hard to figt through screens consistently. teams had similar dilemma back then but you could pretty easily go to a 3v2 defense because there was one or two guys on the court who you're happy talking a 20 footer.[/QUOTE]
Yes the 3 ball is used more now so players aobviously work on it more and are better st it. Theyre also open more though because of the fact players cant fight through screens anymore. I cant believe some of the foul couls refs make now when players try to fight through screens. Its so bad the defenders dont even try anymore. Its ridiculous.
[QUOTE=FKAri]Been watching basketball since 1988 (and no that's not the year I was born). There goes your argument.
:oldlol:
Go field a team with 0 3pt shooters. Put them against an NBA team and watch how all of a sudden that NBA's team defense starts looking suffocating. Today, iIt's easier to blow by someone 1 on 1 and a defensive breakdown is far more devastating than it used to be. But likewise, the defense has to be a lot smarter than what the bird brained 80's teams were running and it has to be able to stretch further out. No more 1-dimensional goofy big stiffs who do nothing but bang for boards.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's that and the 3 defensive sec. Sometimes the refs don't call it.
There are more info on players now, but they still do things back then that is more "complex" than what your analysis talk about on TV. They would notice players are good at going to their right, so they would force them to the left. Or if they are too good in the baseline, they would force them to the middle so they can trap them in the paint. They would know which player at which area would like to take the shot.
But the amount of 3pt shooting now really does improve on the spacing. So, it gives more breathing room for the perimeter player. The defense has to work a lot harder to guard now. Depending on which system you play, the offense could be complex or simple. Like with the Rockets, they just drive and kick. Sometimes they would do picks to get mismatch. That isn't as complex as the triangle or Kerr hybrid or Pop's motion offense.
It's a mixture of things thing. While the rules definitely help offense to flow better, increase the pace, and make offense easier as intended by the NBA; the coaching has something to do with it too with the emphasis on 3pt shooting.
[QUOTE=Micku]Well, it's that and the 3 defensive sec. Sometimes the refs don't call it.
There are more info on players now, but they still do things back then that is more "complex" than what your analysis talk about on TV. They would notice players are good at going to their right, so they would force them to the left. Or if they are too good in the baseline, they would force them to the middle so they can trap them in the paint. They would know which player at which area would like to take the shot.
But the amount of 3pt shooting now really does improve on the spacing. So, it gives more breathing room for the perimeter player. The defense has to work a lot harder to guard now. Depending on which system you play, the offense could be complex or simple. Like with the Rockets, they just drive and kick. Sometimes they would do picks to get mismatch. That isn't as complex as the triangle or Kerr hybrid or Pop's motion offense.
It's a mixture of things thing. While the rules definitely help offense to flow better, increase the pace, and make offense easier as intended by the NBA; the coaching has something to do with it too with the emphasis on 3pt shooting.[/QUOTE]
I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.
Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.
However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.
Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.
In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.
So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.
Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.
I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yes the 3 ball is used more now so players aobviously work on it more and are better st it. Theyre also open more though because of the fact players cant fight through screens anymore. I cant believe some of the foul couls refs make now when players try to fight through screens. Its so bad the defenders dont even try anymore. Its ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
i dont it's that bad on screens personally. Also on the flip side, few more illegal screens are getting called now. It's pretty undisputable that there are less fouls now however.
[QUOTE=keep-itreal]:facepalm stop it. Of course a 90s player would glorify their own era by saying how tough it was back then. Stop exaggerating it, defense was not tough or physical back then like these old heads keep saying it was.[/QUOTE]
if that were the case why did players get laid on their ass half the time they drove the paint
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.[/QUOTE]
Here is my problem with this.
Current league ortg...109
1987 league ortg...108.3
Current league pace...101
1987 league pace...100.8
Current average 3's team attempts per game...34
1987 average 3's team attempts per game...5
So, if defense was so much better back then...why were they getting torched like they defenses are today? Even worse, back then, you didn't even have to worry about the 3...the offenses were very clearly playing a suboptimal strategy based on basic math.
We can argue rules and specifics...and I'll agree with a lot of what you'll likely say, but zooming out...it is kind of hard to argue that you can't play defense now, but back in 1987...they were playing real defense...while getting lit up by a laughable offensive strategy compared to now.
I guess you could argue that players were much better offensively back then, but ugh...that seems like a tough sell.
That is why I just think we have to just be specific about it being "easier now"...it is important to note that has to be relative to a specific era...because it sure as hell was a lot harder to score in 2003 than it was in 1987 and 2019.
look at this disillusioned loser who thinks these shots are easy:roll:
i.e. he gets his own rebound and then makes a fallaway from like 18 feet
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.
Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.
However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.
Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.
In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.
So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.
Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.
I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.[/QUOTE]
ortg was inflated in the 80's because of a strategic choice to focus hard on offensive rebounding. Compared to now where teams like running back on defense as soon as a shot goes up. The shooting percentages arent fantastic so an argument can made it's still a bit harder to score back then.
[QUOTE=72-10]if that were the case why did players get laid on their ass half the time they drove the paint[/QUOTE]
it's the case because what your claim is bs. Guys were not getting laid out on half of their drives
[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]it's the case because what your claim is bs. Guys were not getting laid out on half of their drives[/QUOTE]
please give me a quarter
[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]ortg was inflated in the 80's because of a strategic choice to focus hard on offensive rebounding. Compared to now where teams like running back on defense as soon as a shot goes up. The shooting percentages arent fantastic so an argument can made it's still a bit harder to score back then.[/QUOTE]
I guess, but defending against teams shooting only 5 threes a game is for sure easier to defend against.
I agree there is a lot to consider here, but one thing that I hope we can all agree on is that shooting only 5 threes on average per game as a team was clearly a suboptimal offensive strategy.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I guess, but defending against teams shooting only 5 threes a game is for sure easier to defend against.
I agree there is a lot to consider here, but one thing that I hope we can all agree on is that shooting only 5 threes on average per game as a team was clearly a suboptimal offensive strategy.[/QUOTE]
absolutely agree there. it's pretty remarkable that's not even widely accepted here however.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think it really matters what the comparison actually is.
Is it easier now for teams on offense than it was in 03? Yes, I don't see how anyone could deny that.
However, what gives me pause would be a comparison of now to like 87.
Like, the average offensive rating and pace in 87 is very close to what it is now...and they weren't taking anywhere close to the optimal amount of 3's back then...teams were taking like 5 threes a game.
In no way is that even close to optimal and makes a team so much easier to defend.
So, if offense was clearly suboptimal back then...and the argument is that defense was better back then...it is hard to understand how that logically adds up when the amount of points produced per 100 possessions for the teams in the league is so similar to what is going now.
Again, I think the pace is virtually identical and the current ortg for the league is less than 1 point per 100 possessions different.
I don't know...just something to think about before we start saying none of this stuff counts vs all other eras.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
The offense and general mindset was different back then. Compared to now, they weren't running the most efficient way, but it was harder to really penetrate then. They focused on the mid-range. 3pt shot was really a bad shot. Back then, it was more who could outrun their opponent and execute the offense in the half court by having good post play. The top teams were stacked, so they had options.
The pace started to slow down once the Pistons and the Bulls showed that they could do that. Teams started to copy them. Pistons revolutionized first.
[quote]
[QUOTE=Micku]Yeah.
The offense and general mindset was different back then. Compared to now, they weren't running the most efficient way, but it was harder to really penetrate then. They focused on the mid-range. 3pt shot was really a bad shot. Back then, it was more who could outrun their opponent and execute the offense in the half court by having good post play. The top teams were stacked, so they had options.
The pace started to slow down once the Pistons and the Bulls showed that they could do that. Teams started to copy them. Pistons revolutionized first.
[url]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-04-sp-2723-story.html[/url]
The late 80s and 90s is when it started to change. As you can see by the ppg, the pacing, the fg% and everything. But the Pistons weren't the only team doing this. Jazz had it. Rockets did something similar. The Celts also had this too. One of the best front lines in NBA history. It just that the Pistons weren't as talented, but they still won the chip. When they won, they were either the last or lowest pace teams in the league. they slowed the game down and not allow the teams to outrun them. The Lakers would destroy you due to their talent. Not to say defense didn't exist, cuz obviously it did. But the pacing was different.
It's basically the same throughout across eras. Once Shaq/Kobe started to win, teams wanted to copy them. Slow down the pace and all. Once the Suns started winning, teams were like maybe we can do this too. Then once LBJ did the whole superteam thing, players started to team up with each other. The Spurs took what Mike D'Antoni and P.Jax, mixed it together and had their run. The GSW did something similar.[/QUOTE]
Right, but clearly part of why it was harder to penetrate in 1987 had to do with the 3 point shot not being used appropriately.
Put it this way...if you transported the current offenses to 1987...I'd expect them to do better than they currently are doing now. Conversely, if you transported the 1987 offenses to now...I'd expect them to do worse.
So, my point, is that we have to be specific about which eras are "harder" or "easier"...huge difference between early 00's and mid 80's...
Completely agree about the progression over time...and it reached a breaking point in the early 00's...where defense had clearly won based on the rules and the game had shifted too far in that direction...hence they made the decision to free up players and change the rules...
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Right, but clearly part of why it was harder to penetrate in 1987 had to do with the 3 point shot not being used appropriately.
Put it this way...if you transported the current offenses to 1987...I'd expect them to do better than they currently are doing now. Conversely, if you transported the 1987 offenses to now...I'd expect them to do worse.
So, my point, is that we have to be specific about which eras are "harder" or "easier"...huge difference between early 00's and mid 80's...
Completely agree about the progression over time...and it reached a breaking point in the early 00's...where defense had clearly won based on the rules and the game had shifted too far in that direction...hence they made the decision to free up players and change the rules...[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I agree with the efficiency on the offense.
But, I would still say the eras which were harder or easier to score depends on what are you talking about. Like for perimeter players? Yeah, kind'a if you were a driver. The paint was more clogged up back then because the spacing wasn't good. But transition defense wasn't as good either with most teams. And with talent like the Celts, 76ers and Lakers, you were gonna get outrun.
Scoring in the paint or even driving in the half court set back then was going to be tough. And another fact that, if they choose to, the hard fouls are a bitch. Some flagrant fouls now aren't flagrant fouls back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kevin Mchale clothesline on Kurt Rambis didn't get him kicked out of the game. I don't even remember if it was tech. The commentators were like, "That's just part of the game. Play ball." Not that hard fouls like that was common, but the thought of it could affect the players.
They would give you the jumper, unless you are really really good at it. Like the best in the league. Fast breaks? Go for it. Half court set, and if you can't shoot? It might take some work. But there are plenty of stars back then who did fine.
But overall defense? Better as time went on until the early 00s. Efficiency on offense is better now too. Yes, the rules helped with that but also the value of the 3 like you mentioned.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Here is my problem with this.
Current league ortg...109
1987 league ortg...108.3
Current league pace...101
1987 league pace...100.8
Current average 3's team attempts per game...34
1987 average 3's team attempts per game...5
So, if defense was so much better back then...why were they getting torched like they defenses are today? Even worse, back then, you didn't even have to worry about the 3...the offenses were very clearly playing a suboptimal strategy based on basic math.
We can argue rules and specifics...and I'll agree with a lot of what you'll likely say, but zooming out...it is kind of hard to argue that you can't play defense now, but back in 1987...they were playing real defense...while getting lit up by a laughable offensive strategy compared to now.
I guess you could argue that players were much better offensively back then, but ugh...that seems like a tough sell.
That is why I just think we have to just be specific about it being "easier now"...it is important to note that has to be relative to a specific era...because it sure as hell was a lot harder to score in 2003 than it was in 1987 and 2019.[/QUOTE] well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.
Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.
For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.
And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.
My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.
I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.
So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...
Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.[/QUOTE]
Totally agreed. Another thing was that the defender could hold his man a little bit back then. You can't as much anymore. But defenses ARE smarter and more deliberate nowadays than they were. They've also had to be with so many of their tools taken away.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.
Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.
For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.
And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.
My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.
I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.
So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...
Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.[/QUOTE]
Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.
I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.
So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.
[QUOTE=FKAri]Totally agreed. Another thing was that the defender could hold his man a little bit back then. You can't as much anymore. But defenses ARE smarter and more deliberate nowadays than they were. They've also had to be with so many of their tools taken away.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i agree that you have to be a better defender now than before because now you basically cant cheat.
the game's rules actually were formerly better tasked towards stopping one player than they are now
and, there used to be contact, often hard contact, on lane penetration oft times
what people forget is that playing defense of an intimidating nature instills a sense of intimidation in the offense
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.
I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.
So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.[/QUOTE]
I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.
However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...
Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...
That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.
Was it really that hard to score in the paint in the 90s? If what DMavs posted is correct and the offensive rating is around the same, and you consider how few 3s were attempted, then that means the players would literally have to be scoring at the rim at a pretty high percentage. Unless everyone shot like Dirk, CP3, Curry, etc. from midrange. Even if they did it wouldn't be as efficient.
For perimeter players?
It was tougher to score in the 90s. Compared to now that just isn't debatable imo. When you remove handchecking and invoke a 'freedom of movmement' rule, where basically offensive players can never be touched, that makes it pretty clear. With that said the difference isn't what nostalgia-laden fans claim. Overall? League wide offense compared with today was around the same range. Despite not being a 'physical league', today's teams have put up respectable defensive ratings. Especially in the postseason.
The best era of defense has got to be from ~1998-2004. Both statistically and with the eye test. Most of the high volume perimeter scorers had consistent INEFFICIENT games. Some with entire seasons.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]For perimeter players?
It was tougher to score in the 90s. Compared to now that just isn't debatable imo. When you remove handchecking and invoke a 'freedom of movmement' rule, where basically offensive players can never be touched, that makes it pretty clear. With that said the difference isn't what nostalgia-laden fans claim. Overall? League wide offense compared with today was around the same range. Despite not being able to 'be physical', today's teams have put up respectable defensive ratings. Especially in the postseason.
The best era of defense has got to be from ~1998-2004. Both statistically and with the eye test. Most of the high volume perimeter scorers had consistent INEFFICIENT games. Some with entire seasons.[/QUOTE]
Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.
Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.
That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.
However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...
Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...
That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.
If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.
Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.
Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.
That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem.
Teams now play exactly the same.
Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.
When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.
Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme. Without a doubt. The '04 Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.
Why are some struggling to discern the difference between a player bringing the ball up court with his back to the defender in the 90s vs bringing it up court in today's game without the need to have your back to the defender?
It's pretty obvious when you watch the games how it was more physical back then.
The reason why they had to bring it up that way back then is because actual defense was allowed to be played and it was more physical.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.
If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.
Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.[/QUOTE]
Of course I am...and have repeatedly said so. The rules are much easier now for perimeter players post 2004. But, that kind of makes my point actually...
The problem, again, comes back to the ratings being nearly identical...if offense is easier, which we agree, and the current offensive strategy is superior...
Then why are the ratings so similar? Again, I understand there is nuance to all this, but sometimes just zooming out is a really good starting point.
I just don't think you guys realize how easy it was to score back in the 80's and early 90's as well...players/teams were not working nearly as hard on defense as you seem to think they were.
Again, we also all agree that the late 90's and early 00's had the best defense...and what do you know...you see a significant difference in ratings...and the pace at which the game was played as well...and teams were playing closer to optimal offense in terms of shooting 3's during that time as well. Not fully because there were more bad shots being routinely taken likely than now, but clearly better than taking 5 threes a game like I've talked about.
Who cares about the attempts of recent champions when they are all in the same relative ballpark to the league they are playing in? I'm talking about huge disparities in attempts on the whole.
You make it sound like I'm arguing that shooting more 3's automatically makes you win a title. Nevermind, you actually said basically that. LOL, dude, complete strawman...not to mention, again, you need to learn that defense matters for titles...you completely leave that out of all of your analysis when it comes to Lebron ball as well.
You bring up the Rockets...care to guess how the Rockets offense has done lately?
17? 2nd
18? 1st
19? 2nd
20? 3rd
Not sure what your point is. Winning isn't all about offense. Flawed argument.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]That's the problem.
Teams now play exactly the same.
Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.
When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.
Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme though. Without a doubt. The Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.[/QUOTE]
The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.
[QUOTE=Smoke117]The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.[/QUOTE]
By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.
Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbied for an elimination to hand-checking.
I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.
[QUOTE=Smoke117]The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.[/QUOTE]
No doubt, but I do think it is fair that a combination of everything led to defenses clearly being better back then.
But you are right to also point out that the offense being played then was not optimal either.
Teams weren't taking enough 3's and they were taking way too many long 2's.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.
Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbed for an elimination to hand-checking.
I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. [B]Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.
I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41][/B]
Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.
I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.[/QUOTE]
Right, but I also think its "worth a mention" to point the part you bolded. [I]ISO hero ball [/I] was an extension of the rules from that era.
"3>2"
Yes. That is obvious. But its also harder to make three's @ a respectable clip when defenses are more physical. And when they can put the clamps on you, full-court.
Everything is intertwined. But the main reason you see OPTIMAL offense today is because of the rules. Unless your argument is that it took ~40 years to realize 3 is greater than 2.