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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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? 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.[/QUOTE] well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]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.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here, lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.

Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.[/QUOTE]

Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.

[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 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]
I disagree with the idea that the rules from 98 to 2004 were balanced. If they were there wouldn't be a anomalously low offensive output. That era stands out from basically the rest of basketball history as the lowest scoring era in basketball. If the rules allow such strong defense that offense is significantly lower than the rest of basketball history it isn't really balanced.

Enforcing the hand-check ban which had been in place since 1980 but frequently not enforced, especially against good defenders who deliberately gamed the system, was necessary to bring balance to the game.

People use the word "hand-check" to describe something that isn't actually hand-checking. Hand-checking is, as the word suggests, simply checking where the player is using your hand, getting a feel for their motion so that you can react more effectively when they move. Pushing and holding a player are not hand-checking, and they have always been something that is meant to be illegal.

The problem is it is very difficult for officials to differentiate between legitimate hand checking and illegitimate holding and pushing because the line between the two is very fuzzy. Savvy defenders have taken advantage of this through the years and pushed the boundaries so the league has had to step in and crack down on it repeatedly. This crackdown didn't just happen in 04, it happened in the early 90s as well as the early eighties.

I would argue that the biggest problem that is leading to so many threes so easily is that screeners are regularly allowed to move, shove men that are trying to track the 3-point shooter, stick their arms and elbows out to make themselves bigger than they should be allowed to, and do various other things that make it impossible for a defender to stick with the three-point shooter. If the league simply cracked down heavily on any sort of moving screen, attempt to shove out a hip, or use of arms and elbows to make the body wider, defenders would do a significantly better job contesting threes.

In essence the problem isn't that defenders are not allowed enough physicality, the problem is that the offense is allowed too much physicality. This is also seen when defenders are called for fouls when it is clear that the offensive player is the one who created the contact. Referees need to stop calling fouls when a player who is driving changes their angle to slam into the defender's body. Most of those situations I think should be no calls.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here,[B] lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.
[/B]
Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.[/QUOTE]

Who's arguing that? I'm saying its tougher to make them at a decent clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three, or have a wet jumper? Not much anyone can do 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality? The shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses NOW than I do, but also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are[/QUOTE]

For sure, we agree on that.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Who's arguing that? I said that its tougher to make them at a respectable clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three. Or have a wet jumper. Not much anyone can do in a 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality, the shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses now than I do. But also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.[/QUOTE]

I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.

You brought up the rules...and I agreed, completely, that is part of it.

I just also think teams were clearly late to realization that 3's matter. They certainly didn't realize it in the 80's...got smarter in the 90's and 00's...and then have realized the power of the 3 and the detriment of the long 2 more and more now.

Currently, 38% of attempts come from 3. Back in 2007...three years after the rules change...21% of attempts came from 3.

My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.[/quote]

I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".

[quote]My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?[/QUOTE]

Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tight and more physically?

I could say yes to your question. But I can't ignore the rules either.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".



Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tighter and more physically?

I could say yes, but I can't ignore the rules either.[/QUOTE]

I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.[/QUOTE]

They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.[/QUOTE]

I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.[/QUOTE]

We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.[/QUOTE]

Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.

Wait a minute, hold up, hold up.

I do like that you guys are bringing up the amount of iso ball that was very prevalent in the late 90s and early 00s. The defense was getting more and more abusive of the rules too.

But there were bad shots also being made and people were complaining about how the teams were playing. They did miss the fast tempo of the 80s and early 90s and say the players weren't making the smart plays. Even when I looked back at the 80s and early 90s, they did better shot selection relative to the era. It seemed to me a bunch of iso plays, even with the top teams. Some of the bad shot selection was ill advised 3pt shots, taking too many dribbles, and etc.

In the 80s, sometimes when they were open, they shot it. And they also kicked the ball down to the post and work inside and out. It's also true that defense got better over time. But what is also true in the 80s, they did not want you to drive in the paint in a half court set.

I think we should also acknowledge that a lot of the top teams in the 80s and early 90s had more offensive talent than what we saw in the late 90s and early 00s. Almost similar to the Bulls, had some plays, especially in the late 90s, where MJ just had to carry the Bulls offensively, many teams were emulating that with their sole star player. Did you guys remember how Spurs playing back then? In the 99-03? It wasn't as pretty as the Spurs in 12-14. It wasn't a motion offense it seemed. It was give the ball Duncan and hope for the best. The Raptors? AI 76ers? Compared that to the showtime Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even Pistons where they were multiple hof in their prime or still solid on the team?

The Kings were like the only team that I can think of that ran a higher pace than the others, had more passing than the other teams, and still was solid defensively and great offensively. They were pretty entertaining basketball. I guess the Mavs too. The Lakers were solid of course, but they were the duo.

Part of the reason why playing at a lower pace got popular in the first place was because of the Pistons did it in the 80s. They made defense more popular to play, especially in how they played transition defense and controlling the pace. They did it so teams like the Celts and Lakers with the amount of talent that they had won't be able to just out score them based upon talent. And as we moved to the 90s, the top teams weren't as talented as the top teams of the 80s. Everyone was adapting the Pistons. The Pistons weren't the only teams to do this tho. Jazz done it, but not as successful. The Bulls did it. The Celts did it to some extent.

The point I'm trying to make is that, it's all cause and effect.

80s were ruled by the top teams running you out the building. But they also had top talent and played the half court set very well.

Late 80s, Pistons made defense popular. They were other teams that did it, but teams paid attention to them more cuz final appearances I'm guessing. Slowing the pace down, getting back on d faster in transition. Most teams back then try to beat each other with transition.

Early 90s: heavy talent top teams were gone, Bulls ruled. Also played at slow pace. Most teams copy whoever is at the top. MJ ruled. The Pistons also did too many cheap shots, so the NBA was harsher on the hard fouls.

Mid 90s: MJ retired. League realized perimeter play increase rating and notice points were going down. Modified handchecking and put the 3pt line down to increase scoring.

Late 90s: MJ came back. Crisis avoided. Teams progressively started to slow the pace down even further.

Early 00s: Bulls MJ was no more. Teams played a super slow pace. Media tried to make a bunch of next MJs because "MJ" like brings ratings. A bunch of iso wing players. Shaq/Kobe era.

Mid 00s: A bunch of articles and complaints of some owners about the state of the NBA. Centers like Shaq, Mutombo camping in the paint. Slow ass pace. People missing the 80s. Disliking some iso ball. So, rule change to make perimeter play easier. Zone to encourage more passing and to stop Shaq. Elimination of handchecking, 3 defense second rule. Fights and I think flagrants were more punishable due to Malice at the Palace. Dress code due to NBA not liking the thuggish style. Decreasing the half court second rule from 10-8 secs. This is all in like a 2 year span or something.

Modern nba: Mike D'Antoni being the biggest influence and his Suns. And analytics. Overtime, along with the rules changing to increase freedom of movement with perimeter play, increase the tempo did happen. Value of the 3. Pop and Steve Kerr took what Mike D'Antoni did and just made some adjustments to it.

Micku...

I think most of us agree with your main points about it all being connected.

What I'm saying...is that regardless of rules...taking less than 15 threes a game is not optimal based on the basic math of NBA basketball since the 3 point line was implemented.

What the exact optimal number is will depend, of course, on the defensive rules, but in the last 40 years...there have been no version of rules, in my opinion, in which it would have been a good idea to take so few 3's like teams did in previous eras.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.[/QUOTE]

Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.

[QUOTE=Micku]Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.[/QUOTE]

Of course.

Always extremes, but the math is really not in your favor at some point.

3's are only one part of the game, and can be both a detriment and positive.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.[/QUOTE]
I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the
perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.

Would it go down to 5 a game like the 80's? No thats way to low but it probably be in the low 20 range or so

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc. You guys make it sound like it was all at the rim...which we all know isn't true. Players took way too many long 2's...taking a few steps back not only opens up the court more for your teammates, but also gives your team more points.

It wasn't all the rules...it was the conventional wisdom that took too long to realize how powerful the 3 really is.

For example, Iverson took 28% of his shots as long 2's...how did the rules prevent 3's...but not long 2's?

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.

You guys are inflating the impact of hand-checking on the ability to take shots. Yes, it mattered, but the notion that is was just too hard to take 3's in the modern era just isn't true...hell, it isn't even true in the toughest defensive era of the late 90's and early 00's...as 3's increased over time...

Just to make sure you are following this. You claimed that the only reason teams took more 3's was because of the rules changes...and would never have come to that realization.

Problem is, 3's steadily increased over time despite defense getting better over time. The defense, for example, was much better in the late 90's and early 00's than it was in the 80's and early 90's...however, the exact opposite of what you claim happened. As defense got better...teams slowly but surely started taking more 3's.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

So, no, defense got better, not worse from 92 to 04.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc.

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but your talking about elite players who can get a shot off whenever they want. Now yiu have guys like vanfleet who can off more thress than any of those guys.

And again teams were slow to do it for a reason as i already explained. It just wouldn't work the same with the old defensive rules. Hopefully they bring them back and we can see for sure.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc.

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.[/QUOTE]

I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah but your talking about elite players who can get a shot off whenever they want. Now yiu have guys like vanfleet who can off more thress than any of those guys.

And again teams were slow to do it for a reason as i already explained. It just wouldn't work the same with the old defensive rules. Hopefully they bring them back and we can see for sure.[/QUOTE]

Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug:

Also, elite players are what drives all this stuff. Kobe, for example, taking more 3's would have made him harder to guard...and if he's harder to guard...then his team is harder to guard. Not rocket science.

Lastly, please stop creating straw-mans of my argument. Nowhere have I said that this would work as well before the rules change. Not sure why you need to create a fake argument to go after...just respond to what I say.

[QUOTE=Micku]I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.[/QUOTE]

Again, you guys have to really stop pretending like I'm arguing that rules had nothing to do with it. I've repeatedly agreed with that.

Another part, however, was clearly that teams were getting smarter over time and realizing the power of the 3.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE] well you conveniently used 13 in 98 but the truth is from 94 to 04 it hovered around 15. It went up and down slightly throughout that span. Then from 04 it consistently went up until it is where it is now.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]well you conveniently used 13 in 98 but the truth is from 94 to 04 it hovered around 15. It went up and down slightly throughout that span. Then from 04 it consistently went up until it is where it is now.[/QUOTE]

I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.

[QUOTE=Micku]I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.[/QUOTE]

For the vast majority of stars, there

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, you guys have to really stop pretending like I'm arguing that rules had nothing to do with it. I've repeatedly agreed with that.

Another part, however, was clearly that teams were getting smarter over time and realizing the power of the 3.[/QUOTE]

You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.

[QUOTE=Micku]You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.[/QUOTE]

No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?

[QUOTE=Micku]You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.[/QUOTE]

Yea I think you can only check contested shots from recent years. However if you’re talking about role players, a lot of their midrange shots were open. It was pretty often you see a guy from 18-20ft who was a catch a shoot guy. Tht happens like twice a game now. Ofc the fact that modern guys practice the 3 is a factor too.

Since you were mostly talking about contested shots I thought you were referring more to stars. I agree they could do whatever they want but in general they were throwing away points taking long contested 2s instead of contested 3s

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.[/QUOTE] i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]For the vast majority of stars, there

No hand checking = can

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is that...if true, you expect there to be an explosion of 3's right after the rules changed if they knew the true power of the 3.

And that isn't what you saw...and again, you are counting the 3 years in which they shortened the line...which skews things a bit.

But, what do we see after the rules changed? You see a slight increases... from in line with teams still figuring things out and being late to the realization...just like I've claimed.

And, again...back to the elite player stuff....the fact that elite players weren't taking them in favor of long 2's just shows teams didn't know the power of the 3 yet. You claimed stars could get what they want essentially....why weren't they taking the 3...the better shot...if teams knew?

And, no, again...I don't say that it "started after 05" when they realized. I think it was a slow process from the 80's to present. Again dude...they started increasing the number of 3's from when the line was implemented over time...I'm saying they were late to fully realize just how many should threes they should have been taking.

I'm saying that if teams had all the current knowledge under the rules of the previous eras...80s, 90s, early 00s...that teams would shoot quite a bit more 3's...that is my argument.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.[/QUOTE]
Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.

[QUOTE=Micku]I was never talking about stars tho. I even said that stars could do whatever they want. It didn't stop Kobe, T-Mac, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter for taking more 3s. I was talking about the playmaking and the effect of the rules change to stop/make an open shot. Like Steve Nash, driving and kicking to a Joe Johnson or Raja Bell or whatever.

The drive and kick. Some players would stop dead when facing against a big guy in the paint. I was wondering of hand checking, zone or 3 defensive sec had anything to do with the % of an open 3pt. It would be harder to create something off the dribble with the style.

But it's not a significant % enough for me to really say. Not that it really matters. Plus more teams practice that shot. We won't know unless it goes back to those rules and maybe even the pace. Pace would affect the fga, but still you could take % of your shot and just go for the 3. Like 50% of your shots are 3pt attempts.[/QUOTE]

Yea I saw your comment later. Definitely agree there are less drive and kicks but I would argue to explain the % not being significant that there were other ways to get role players open jumpshots. Kick outs on postups, bad rotations, just having someone like Jordan who demanded hard doubles, and open shots in fast breaks which you saw plenty of in the 80s at least

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.[/QUOTE]

They still be taking a bit more than 20. It’s not like handchecking makes it easier to get to the rim. You would be sacrificing contested 3s for contested 2s and thts a drop in efficiency for a large majority of guys. There are a lot more guys than harden who can get 3s off without screens at an ok clip, even a mediocre shooter like lebron. Most teams have at least a guy

Edit: I forgot post ups you see more of those but I feel like current teams would use the post to kick out to shooters. The warriors loved doing that with draymond; draymond trying to score from the post was the last option

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?[/QUOTE]

I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to take the time to read if you are going to post. I have already said, a number of times, that of course the rules play a role and of course the league is softer on perimeter players now than it used to be.

Of course they could not do the same efficiency under the rules back in the late 90's or early 00's...I have made that abundantly clear.

I've already answered the other two parts as well. I won't pretend to know what the optimal amount of 3's was in previous eras. However, I will say that it sure as hell wasn't 5 in the 80's...and it sure as hell wasn't around 15 in the 90's or early 00's. Mainly because, again, you are giving those up in favor of long 2's a lot...and that is just dumb.

I think you are confusing how role players generally score. In no era were role players consistently beating their man to score. Doesn't happen today and it didn't happen in the past that often.

[QUOTE=Micku]I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

It is easier now on perimeter players and to answer your question...role players wouldn't be as open as they are now.

However, not taking enough 3's is also easier to defend...so when we evaluate this stuff...we can't only look at one side of it.

The offenses back then made life easier on the defenses by not taking better shots.

Teams settled for way too many long 2's rather than taking 3's...both from stars and role players.

Think about the Bibby/Webber pick and pop...just as an example...they should have been doing that higher and both of them should have been shooting more 3's...

Yes, it was harder back then, but not to the point that it makes taking long 2's better.