This YT video explains and shows why the no zone defense was much easier to play in.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]If zone isn't effective, then why even have the rule?

Even Jordan and many others said they hated zone. Jordan didn't have to deal with it until he played with the Wizards.[/QUOTE]
Not this AGAIN! For the 343 in the last 3 moths.

KG, McGrady, Duncan talk how they don't like zone, zone becomes legal, they all have career highs in scoring.


That zone!


That goes to show how easy players have it today, they change the rules, including making this badass defensive scheme legal and still players score like never before.

[QUOTE=andgar923]

Forward to years later and the very same man has mocked today's game and players. Because true zone was never applied.

[/QUOTE]
Exactly.. MJ said the ban on hand-checking and physicality would allow him to score [url=http://uproxx.com/dimemag/2010/10/michael-jordan-if-i-played-today-i-could-have-scored-100-points/][u]100 points[/u][/url] - and every single NBA player that played with hand-checking [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183958][u]agrees with him[/u][/url].

MJ's comments trashing today's post-hand-check defenses are no surprise - there are countless other [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMacMfZYEr4][u]quotes[/u][/url] from players and coaches saying what is common knowledge - that it's harder to score on hand-checking, higher physicality, no-spacing, and paint-camping.

These 4 things more than offset zones, especially since zones are banned inside the paint anyway, due to the defensive 3 seconds rule that forces defenders to stay within [url=http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html][u]armslength[/u][/url] of their man at all times while inside the paint - being forced to stay within armslength of your man is the opposite of a zone (it's man-to-man - that's right, the NBA forces defenders to play man-to-man inside the paint.. the zone is only allowed OUTSIDE the paint).
.

[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]Not this AGAIN! For the 343 in the last 3 moths.

KG, McGrady, Duncan talk how they don't like zone, zone becomes legal, they all have career highs in scoring.


That zone!


That goes to show how easy players have it today, they change the rules, including making this badass defensive scheme legal and still players score like never before.[/QUOTE]

This is true. Plenty of players and coaches were panicking over the new rules hindering stars, bringing scoring down, etc... despite everything the people actually changing the rules were saying.

By 2006 when they got rid of handchecking, perimeter players were scoring at levels never before seen league wide.

[INDENT]The game’s elite players did not embrace zone defenses when they were introduced to the N.B.A. in 2001. They saw them as an infringement on the purity of their professional game.

Shaquille O’Neal detested the concept. [B]Kobe Bryant feared his drives to the basket would be hindered by clogged lanes.[/B] So did Vince Carter.

[B]“Hated it,” Carter, of the Nets, said recently. “A lot of guys did. It just changed the style of the game, especially if you played years before that, like myself. I wasn’t too excited about it, but as the years have gone by, the old ways have passed us by. So, you adapt to what’s going on.”[/B]

But the effect of zone defenses, since they became legal in the 2001-2 season, has been noticeable only to the trained eye. [B]The concept of guarding areas instead of players is used fleetingly. It is largely viewed as a gimmick to be avoided in a league in which nearly everyone agrees that each player should be held accountable for guarding his own man.[/B]

To the originators of the change, however, the game is more aesthetically pleasing than before it took effect, when coaches were taking advantage of complex illegal-defense rules that encouraged a stagnant game.

“The game had become heavily reliant on one-on-one and two-on-two basketball,” said Stu Jackson, the league’s executive vice president for basketball operations. “The game was not being played the way most experts felt it should be played and that a more free-flowing, up-tempo type of game should be showcased.”

Dismayed by the slowed game and sluggish scoring, the N.B.A.’s competition committee convened in Phoenix, looking to pick up the pace. Owners endorsed changes that trimmed the time allotted to move the ball to the frontcourt to 8 seconds from 10 and eliminated the illegal-defense rules.

[B]“No one knew what illegal defense was,” said Jerry Colangelo, a former owner of the Suns who was the chairman of the committee. “It was kind of left to the eye of the beholder.”[/B]

Zone defense, widely used in high school and college basketball, was also introduced with a significant caveat. The committee instituted a three-second rule for defenders in order to prevent teams from parking taller players in the post. [B][COLOR="Red"]The goal was to free the lanes and encourage cuts and drives through the paint.[/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR="Red"]With those changes, among other factors, offenses have opened up, and scoring has climbed. Teams are averaging 99.7 points a game this season, up from 94.8 in 2000-1, the season before the new rules were introduced. Still, the zone defense has not been embraced in the N.B.A. It is mildly effective in spurts, but often dismissed.[/COLOR][/B]

“When you see it in the league, they do it because they can’t guard somebody,” Quentin Richardson of the Knicks said. “If they’re having a hard time stopping this person or that person or a team in general, and they can’t do anything, teams play zone.”

The laundry list of the zone’s shortcomings in the N.B.A. is relatively deep. Long-range shooters are truer in the N.B.A. than at any other level, and open shots are more easily found in the holes of zone defenses. N.B.A. players are better passers, so it is easier for them to whip the ball around the court to find the open man. Teams can grab offensive rebounds more effectively against a zone because opposing players have no set assignments on block-outs.

Then there’s the stigma.

[B]Asked how much zone defense the Cavaliers used, Cleveland Coach Mike Brown said none.[/B]

“It almost says, Hey, we can’t guard these guys,” Brown said. “To a certain degree, psychologically, it makes you feel like you’re conceding, and it could be a downer if it doesn’t work.”

Beyond that, some say that N.B.A. coaches are hesitant to install a zone defense simply because they do not have a longstanding history with it or an encompassing knowledge of its intricacies.

“You still have a lot of coaches, general managers and assistant coaches that are old-school former players,” Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. “And the league is based on solid man-to-man principles. That’s how they were taught the game. That’s how they grew up playing the game. And it’s difficult trying to teach something that you don’t necessarily have a great feel for yourself.”

Earlier this season, the Denver Nuggets looked to add wrinkles to their defense, and briefly experimented with zone defenses.

“We practiced one for one week, and it was awful,” Nuggets Coach George Karl said.

The Nets, the Golden State Warriors and the Dallas Mavericks are among the teams incorporating zone defenses to throw offenses off their rhythm or to guard an inbounds pass.

“You spend time teaching your zone and cleaning up your zone,” Nets Coach Lawrence Frank said. “But unless you’re totally committed to zone, you’re not going to spend nearly as much time on zone as you do your man defense. There’s not enough time in the N.B.A. workweek.”

When a team switches to a zone, its opponent can become somewhat flustered. Most N.B.A. teams continue using the offense they would have used against a man-to-man defense.

The reason? If teams do not have enough time to practice a zone defense, they surely do not have time to introduce offenses to attack it.

[B]“When teams do zone, offensively, we’re not ready for it,” Atlanta Hawks Coach Mike Woodson said. “That’s the crazy part behind it. Because you don’t see zone that much, when you do see it, you’re caught off guard.”[/B]

Karl said: “My zone offense is to put three guys on the court who can make 3s and have them make a couple.”

But for Jackson, the N.B.A. executive vice president, how much teams use the zone is irrelevant. The goal was to open the floor and encourage a more balanced game.

“Our game today is more five-man orientated,” Jackson said. “The game looks better. There’s not as much standing around.”

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/sports/basketball/28zone.html?_r=0[/url][/INDENT]

Hilarious that from '96-'00 Kobe had [I]one[/I] 40 point game (he was a 3 time all star and 2nd option on a championship squad in that time) and he was worried that the rules would hinder his game. Flash forward to 2006 and :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]So in other words you keep typing paragraphs to say absolutely nothing. 'Partial Zones', 'Shading', etc whatever you want to call it (times were it was known as 'help defense' :oldlol: ), that has existed for many decades. It's not some new never before seen defense that was invented by Tom Thibodeau in 2010. I showed you specific examples of that, you cried cherry pick and complained that the Knicks were the one time-travelling team from the future who went back in time to play that way. :oldlol:

Fact is- there isn't a single defensive scheme or tactic around now that wasn't used in the past. Call it whatever you want, nitpick as much as your heart desires. But the flip side is true- there are plenty of schemes (particularly full court pressure/zones) and tactics (hand checking/camping in the paint) that players now never see. The NBA [I]explicitly[/I] changed the rules to make it easier for perimeter players to score. They weren't trying to hide their intentions. And it worked out exactly the way they planned.[/QUOTE]
It'd be much better if you just said I don't wanna talk about it bro and did just that.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]It'd be much better if you just said I don't wanna talk about it bro and did just that.[/QUOTE]

Come back when you actually have something to say, bruh.

:biggums:

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]

By 2006 when they got rid of handchecking, perimeter players were scoring at levels never before seen league wide.


Zone defense, widely used in high school and college basketball, was also introduced with a significant caveat. The committee instituted a three-second rule for defenders in order to prevent teams from parking taller players in the post. [B][COLOR="Red"]The goal was to free the lanes and encourage cuts and drives through the paint.[/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR="Red"]With those changes, among other factors, offenses have opened up, and scoring has climbed. Teams are averaging 99.7 points a game this season, up from 94.8 in 2000-1, the season before the new rules were introduced. Still, the zone defense has not been embraced in the N.B.A. It is mildly effective in spurts, but often dismissed.[/COLOR][/B]

“When you see it in the league, they do it because they can’t guard somebody,” Quentin Richardson of the Knicks said. “If they’re having a hard time stopping this person or that person or a team in general, and they can’t do anything, teams play zone.”

[B]Asked how much zone defense the Cavaliers used, Cleveland Coach Mike Brown said none.[/B]

Hilarious that from '96-'00 Kobe had [I]one[/I] 40 point game (he was a 3 time all star and 2nd option on a championship squad in that time) and he was worried that the rules would hinder his game. Flash forward to 2006 and :oldlol:

[/QUOTE]
Exactly.. When the league was considering allowing zone in 2001, some NBA players were initially disappointed..

But when the NBA instituted new rule changes in 2005, [I]those same players[/I] along with every other player and coach felt the hand-check and physicality bans were far more impactful than zones and had turned defenses soft:

MJ said he'd score [url=http://uproxx.com/dimemag/2010/10/michael-jordan-if-i-played-today-i-could-have-scored-100-points/][u]100 points[/u][/url].. Kobe said the defenses were embarrassingly [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMacMfZYEr4][u]soft[/u][/url].. McGrady said today's players [url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1675502-tracy-mcgrady-lebron-james-plays-against-boys-michael-jordan-played-vs-men][u]were boys[/u][/url] compared to the 90's... and on and on and on.. There are [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183958][u]endless quotes[/u][/url] of how soft the hand-check and physicality ban had made NBA defenses.

Ironically, off-ball players actually benefit THE MOST from spacing, less physicality and enhanced ball movement.. Meanwhile ball-dominators benefit from wider driving lanes and easier penetration from the hand-check ban.. So the only question is which part of Jordan's game would go MORE bananas in today's game - his off-ball game that had the fastest [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=371913][u]isolation pace ever[/u][/url], or his GOAT [url=http://www.complex.com/sports/2014/01/michael-jordan-point-guard-in-1989-posted-triple-double-10-of-11-games][u]ball-dominator game[/u][/url]?

He's the only guy ever that was elite at everything - the guy could morph into Stephan Curry in the 1992 Finals if needed, or score 55 in the playoffs on all [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06ly1eN4tI][u]JJ Redick catch-and-shoot[/u][/url] - whatever the defense gave him, he'd use [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11021030&postcount=6][u]elite ability[/u][/url] to exploit.
.

Now why would the game be more 5 man orientated now compared to the 90's?

Take a hard long think about it gentlemen

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

Stu Jackson said it brother

No discussion required

It's STU JACKSON!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Hey Yo][I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.
[/I][/QUOTE]
In 2001.........Two thousand fuking one.......Before the hand check rules....Or are you going to continue to ignore this basic fact because it ruins your argument? In fact, there has been all kinds of shit posted that ruins your argument. You're just stubborn or you just hate MJ that much.....Its not healthy.....

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

[B]The NBA[/B] said it brother

No discussion required

It's [B]the NBA[/B]!!!!!!

[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="3"]Here's the NBA officially stating how the rule changes had accomplished their objective of increasing dribble-penetration.. This is from the source - the NBA was the creator and implementor of the rules, so it's not subjective opinion, just like Warren Buffet's vision for Berkshire Hathaway isn't subjective opinion.. The NBA changed the rules to make penetration easier, and it worked - it's a fact:[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html[/url]


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. [COLOR="Red"]Players are penetrating and the floor is spread.[/COLOR] As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. [COLOR="Red"]By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more[/COLOR], it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: It doesn't. [COLOR="Red"]With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration[/COLOR], cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: [COLOR="Red"]Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration[/COLOR], two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


[i]NBA.COM[/i]: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

[i]STU JACKSON[/i]: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. [COLOR="Red"]The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.[/COLOR]

Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu!

It's a TEAM game now baby!

Stu confirmed it!

No more ultra scrubs putting up 30 a game like Adrian Dantley or Kiki Vandershitscrub!

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu!

[/QUOTE]
[B][I]The NBA would never let him say that if it wasn't true.. He was officially representing the NBA in those statements.[/I]
[/B]

[QUOTE]

Al Jeffereson would be a 2nd tier bigmen in 1996 - no better than the 12th-best:

Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
Ewing
Alonzo
Sabonis (25 PER - unbelievable all-round talent)
Karl Malone
Barkley
Webber
Kemp

And he'd probably be behind Rik Smits, Vin Baker, Dino Radja, and certainly Derrick Coleman.

[/quote]
Not only is penetration easier today, but post scoring is too.. The post efficiencies of today's bigs lets us know how the superior bigs of previous eras would do today - Al Jefferson and others would be considered a 2nd tier bigs in previous eras, yet they are league-leaders in [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200][u]post efficiency today[/u][/url], and they're all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

This elite post efficiency from 2nd tier bigs [I]flat-out proves[/I] today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies... The only reason coaches don't use post-ups as much as before is because floor-spacing and the hand-check ban increased efficiencies on ball movement and dribble penetration, allowing these methods to SURPASS post-ups.. But Al Jefferson scoring 1.00 PPP on the post proves that post efficiencies THEMSELVES haven't diminished at all.

Also, if we are keeping it real, simple logic tells us that today's spacing and defensive 3 seconds rule force defenders to help from further distances on post players.. So even without the Al Jefferson proof, it makes sense that post PPP is higher today than it used to be.. After all, [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]everything else[/u][/url] is.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu![/QUOTE]

This is you right now:

[IMG]http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo248/scaredmomma3/WhiteFlag.gif[/IMG]

Game Over.

Point guards dropping 25/10 and STILL not being an all-star in the 80's!

WOW!

[QUOTE=3ball][SIZE="3"]Here's the NBA officially stating how the rule changes had accomplished their objective of increasing dribble-penetration.. This is from the source - the NBA was the creator and implementor of the rules, so it's not subjective opinion, just like Warren Buffet's vision for Berkshire Hathaway isn't subjective opinion.. The NBA changed the rules to make penetration easier, and it worked - it's a fact:[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html[/url]


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. [COLOR="Red"]Players are penetrating and the floor is spread.[/COLOR] As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. [COLOR="Red"]By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more[/COLOR], it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: It doesn't. [COLOR="Red"]With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration[/COLOR], cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: [COLOR="Red"]Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration[/COLOR], two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


[i]NBA.COM[/i]: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

[i]STU JACKSON[/i]: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. [COLOR="Red"]The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/I]

I haven't read any of this thread.

I bet that "Stu Jackson" has been mentioned >10 times. Somebody on this forum cares about Stu Jackson more than the mans own family.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo][I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/I][/QUOTE]
I'm convinced you and I'm still balling are the same dude because you either are both dumb as ***, or can't read, or can't add, or are stubborn, or haters, or probably all the above..And I really try not to insult posters on this forum...But its very obvious you 2 have run out of arguments and you have nothing else to add.. I don't understand why you guys even continue to post in this thread or any threads related to this topic......

[SIZE="6"]Look at the date of your article - April 2001 - MJ had no idea the new zone rules would LATER be accompanied by the hand-check ban in 2005, because when he found out about the hand-check and physicality ban, this is what he had to say (from 2010):

[B]“It’s less physical and the rules have changed, obviously,” said Jordan. “Based on these rules, if I had to play with my style of play, I’m pretty sure I would have fouled out or I would have been at the free throw line pretty often and I could have scored 100 points.”[/B][/SIZE]

And in case you didn't know, 2010 is 9 years after 2001.

[QUOTE=Poetry][I]"No team played zone on more than 10 percent of defensive possessions last season, per Synergy Sports. Dallas became known as the zone team in 2010-11, but they played a hybrid man zone more than a straight zone, and they did that on a small minority of possessions.

[B]The league overall actually scored more efficiently against zone than man last season, according to Synergy.[/B]" [/I]

Grantland, 2012[/QUOTE]

Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy... and there are very few of those.... thats when it is initiated.... when the Lebrons play.... and that 10% now makes perfect sense, but for the Lebrons its 60-100%....

What "synergy" needs to do is find out how those superstar scorers produce zone vs man.... unfortunately that test wont turn out in your favor i can promise you that, because logically no guy scores better against 5 guys rather than 1....

This doesnt take away from Jordan, he was a great player, he would do great against any defense, but even he will tell you everyday that he would do much better without the zone.....

This is not about Jordan or Lebron/Kobe, era vs era...... this is strictly about Zone im talking about.... its bad, harder to score inside... any superstar scorer (especially the perimeter ones) will tell you the same....

[QUOTE=pauk]Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy... and there are very few of those.... thats when it is initiated.... when the Lebrons play.... and that 10% then makes perfect sense, but for the Lebrons its 60-100%....[/QUOTE]

Holy shit, in a sea of misinformed posters you may have just won Belle of the Ball :wtf:

First the point of playing zone or 'zone' isn't to stop one player. It's a way for a coach to hide weak defenders by taking them off specific players. Depending on the set, it can help prevent drives to the basket, trap the ball in specific areas (including the backcourt on presses).

And where are you getting that LeBron sees 60-100% zone? :oldlol:

That's just a ridiculous number you pulled out of your ass.

[QUOTE=Dro]Answer this basic question or your thread is a fail. If zone is so effective, why don't teams play it more than 10% of the time? Simple question...[/QUOTE]

I Think this era of ball is shat, but I can, without watching the video, make a comment.

It's easier not because they play full zone but because the d cant be moved like it used to. You can't force an iso, esp in post.

If im guarding reggie evans and you bring him to the weak side, I dont have to follow him. That's enough to drastically change the game.

And without touch fouls I bet scoring would be v low.

-Smak

Zone stats are stupid

What's a zone. Define it. Now does man to man defense, with one or two players sagging off effectively covering floor to stop a superstar from getting to the hoop count as zone according to the stats?

**** no

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]Zone stats are stupid

What's a zone. Define it.[B] Now does man to man defense, with one or two players sagging off effectively covering floor to stop a superstar from getting to the hoop count as zone according to the stats?[/B]

**** no[/QUOTE]

It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.[/QUOTE]
And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?[/QUOTE]

Post some examples of the sort of help defense that exists now that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'll wait.

[QUOTE=pauk]Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... [B]the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy[/B]... and there are very few of those.... thats when it is initiated.... when the Lebrons play.... and that 10% now makes perfect sense, but for the Lebrons its 60-100%....

What "synergy" needs to do is find out how those superstar scorers produce zone vs man.... unfortunately that test wont turn out in your favor i can promise you that, because logically no guy scores better against 5 guys rather than 1....

This doesnt take away from Jordan, he was a great player, he would do great against any defense, but even he will tell you everyday that he would do much better without the zone.....

This is not about Jordan or Lebron/Kobe, era vs era...... this is strictly about Zone im talking about.... its bad, harder to score inside... any superstar scorer (especially the perimeter ones) will tell you the same....[/QUOTE]

^After this I have zero doubts in my mind that pauk is a pretentious idiot. :facepalm
If you are not going to post that Jordan flop video don't bother posting at all clown. :whatever:

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?[/QUOTE]

You are stupid to think bran is better than MJ. :roll:

I don't have to don

The rulebooks SAYS so

yes they might miss some illegal defense calls but it was a rule and players abide by it

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]I don't have to don[/QUOTE]

AKA your hoe card was pulled yet again and as always you bitched out.

[QUOTE][B]The rulebooks SAYS so[/B]

yes they might miss some illegal defense calls but it was a rule and players abide by it[/QUOTE]

A History lesson for you...

[INDENT]It takes about 1,000 words to define the NBA's meticulously crafted version of an illegal defense.

The authors of this less-than-historical document had reason for their long-windedness, writing with more than the integrity of the game on their minds.

``The owners told us to come up with something or they would,'' [B]said Dallas Mavericks coach Dick Motta, one of the founding fathers of the illegal-defense rules. [/B]

...
[B]So a committee that included Motta[/B], Phoenix Suns coach Cotton Fitzsimmons and then-Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson [B]came up with the current illegal-defense rules.[/B][/INDENT]

Dick Motta is a central figure in the History of NBA rule changes, specifically pertaining to defense. He was one of the people who actually came up with the illegal defense rules and he was also on the committee in 2001 that abolished them. Here's what he said in 1996 about how effective the rules [I]he literally created[/I] were in stopping the proliferation of zone defense in the NBA.

[INDENT][B]What particularly bothers Motta is that many teams try to get away with zone defenses now, content to only be penalized by a technical foul. [COLOR="Red"]"Our teams are zoning now. Rule or no rule. We're not allowed to use the word `zone' but it's a zone," Motta said[/COLOR].[/B]

-THE NBA HAS THIS RULE ABOUT ILLEGAL DEFENSE, BUT WHO CAN EXPLAIN IT, AND WILL IT EVER GO AWAY? A TWILIGHT ZONE (LA Daily News April 14, 1996 Scott Wolf)[/INDENT]

But what the f*ck does he know right? Random nigguhs like you and Pauk know more than him.

Take a bow. :applause:

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]

You can't force an iso, [B][SIZE="3"]especially in post[/SIZE][/B].

[/quote] [IMG]http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/911d3cac30b219754c53b4b156428f49.gif[/IMG]


[B]The GIF above shows that you're mistaken[/B] - this play could be run on every single possession in today's game.. However, the NBA changed the rules to enhance ball movement and dribble penetration, so these options are normally preferrable to post play.. But all we have to do is look at the post-up efficiencies of today's weaker bigs to estimate how the superior bigs of previous eras would do.

Al Jefferson and others currently [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200][u]lead the NBA[/u][/url] in points per possession (PPP) on the post, and they're all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

But if this were 1996, Jefferson would be no higher than 11th, behind Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Alonzo, Sabonis, Karl Malone, Barkley, Webber, and Kemp.. The elite post efficiency from today's 2nd tier bigs flat-out proves today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies.


[quote=ILLsmak]

If im guarding reggie evans and you bring him to the weak side, I dont have to follow him. That's enough to drastically change the game.

[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif[/IMG]


[B]You are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments[/B] - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in the GIF above?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.

Btw, why hang your hat on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down, so someone is always open.. Paint-camping is much better - [I]infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned[/I].. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, and legal paint-camping.
.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Come back when you actually have something to say, bruh.[/QUOTE]
I already explained what my message was man, if you want to keep up this little kid shit go ahead, you say shading a player on the floor is help defense right? You keep harping on how the rules are different and pasting paragraphs dipshit, obviously there's a correlation to how help defense can be initiated. Whether or not guys did it as a rule breaking strategy that they could get away with at times is not my concern. The thing is its freely available without having to "cheat" in order to execute it in the modern day, so it's not a let's see if we can get away with it deal.

Last time I say this, as bulls fan if you can't understand the importance of being able use elements of zone in coverage then you're either:

A. An idiot
Or
B. Being a b*tch for no good reason on the net.

Either way it's not a good look.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]

the importance of being able use elements of zone

[/QUOTE]
[i]Shading and flooding gives up paint and rim protection.[/i]

Also, people mistakenly think it's a problem for guards to face multiple defenders on the perimeter.. By definition, that's exactly what a ballhandler's strength and advantage is.. Ballhandlers love taking on defenders on the perimeter - it's much more preferable than facing defenders and resistance in the paint.

From the big's perspective, shading forces bigs to give up their advantage of contesting smaller players at the rim (previous era paint-camping), for a disadvantage of contesting guards on the perimeter (today's flooding/shading).

Also, you are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments that allow paint-camping - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in [url=http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif][u]this GIF[/u][/url]?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.


[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]

the importance of being able use elements of zone

[/QUOTE]
And why have your entire argument rest on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down so someone is always open, and the compensating rotations open up room for error.. Also, by forcing defenders to defend outside the paint, flooding/shading give up rim and paint protection.. Contrastingly, paint-camping allows everyone to stay at home and defends the paint much better - paint-camping has been long-proven as the most equitable and least exploitable way to defend the floor, especially the paint..

[I]Infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned.. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods and hang your entire argument on them.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, legal paint-camping, and [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]more difficult penetration[/u][/url].[/i]

[QUOTE=3ball][i]Shading and flooding gives up paint and rim protection.[/i]

Also, people mistakenly think it's a problem for guards to face multiple defenders on the perimeter.. By definition, that's exactly what a ballhandler's strength and advantage is.. Ballhandlers love taking on defenders on the perimeter - it's much more preferable than facing defenders and resistance in the paint.

From the big's perspective, shading forces bigs to give up their advantage of contesting smaller players at the rim (previous era paint-camping), for a disadvantage of contesting guards on the perimeter (today's flooding/shading).

Also, you are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments that allow paint-camping - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in [url=http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif][u]this GIF[/u][/url]?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.



And why have your entire argument rest on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down so someone is always open, and the compensating rotations open up room for error.. Also, by forcing defenders to defend outside the paint, flooding/shading give up rim and paint protection.. Contrastingly, paint-camping allows everyone to stay at home and defends the paint much better - paint-camping has been long-proven as the most equitable and least exploitable way to defend the floor, especially the paint..

[I]Infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned.. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods and hang your entire argument on them.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, legal paint-camping, and [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]more difficult penetration[/u][/url].[/i][/QUOTE]
I agree that if you flood you have to give something up, there's a way to beat each defense it's been that way forever. My "argument" doesn't rest on floods at all, I asked a question that a fool couldn't answer straight so he resorted to acting like a child. It's mind numbing that you guys can't admit the smallest inconsistency in your arguments. The most obvious downfall to facing floods/shading is guys being forced into jumpshots in spots on the floor they don't want them in. That's really the goal most times isn't it? I'm not the one with the agenda here though, that much is obvious. I do recognize the difference in the eras but it just means exactly that. They are different, can't really say one is more difficult than the other because they face different obstacles.

[QUOTE=Poetry][I]"No team played zone on more than 10 percent of defensive possessions last season, per Synergy Sports. Dallas became known as the zone team in 2010-11, but they played a hybrid man zone more than a straight zone, and they did that on a small minority of possessions.

[B]The league overall actually scored more efficiently against zone than man last season, according to Synergy.[/B]" [/I]

Grantland, 2012[/QUOTE]

95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.

the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.

if you are playing a 2-3 today, im not surprised that you would get lit up, but thats not the point.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.[/QUOTE]

today thats help defense, 15 years ago it was illegal zone defense

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Post some examples of the sort of help defense that exists now that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'll wait.[/QUOTE]

the video in the op is full of examples.

[QUOTE=chips93]95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.

the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.

if you are playing a 2-3 today, im not surprised that you would get lit up, but thats not the point.[/QUOTE]
Exactly

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]I already explained what my message was man, if you want to keep up this little kid shit go ahead, you say shading a player on the floor is help defense right? You keep harping on how the rules are different and pasting paragraphs dipshit, obviously there's a correlation to how help defense can be initiated. Whether or not guys did it as a rule breaking strategy that they could get away with at times is not my concern. The thing is its freely available without having to "cheat" in order to execute it in the modern day, so it's not a let's see if we can get away with it deal.

Last time I say this, as bulls fan if you can't understand the importance of being able use elements of zone in coverage then you're either:

A. An idiot
Or
B. Being a b*tch for no good reason on the net.

Either way it's not a good look.[/QUOTE]

Again you type paragraphs about absolutely nothing. When you're off you're period and you want to discuss basketball, let me know.

[QUOTE]95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no... no it wouldn't/

[QUOTE]the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... no. People just don't know the difference between an actual zone and man defense with help.

[QUOTE]today thats help defense, 15 years ago it was illegal zone defense

the video in the op is full of examples.[/QUOTE]

I posted a ton of examples from whole games of teams playing actual zone, 'shading' with help, etc from the early 90s and even late 80s without any violations being called. Everything in the video and then some. People caught feelings and accused me of 'cherry picking' :lol