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

Also, you guys can't just remove "stars" or "elite players" from the analysis...they are the driving force of the league.

We are talking about offenses making life easier on defenses by not taking enough 3's...I have no idea why you guys think stars aren't part of that.

Stars taking too many long 2's makes their offense worse and makes life easier on the defense.

In addition, talking about driving/kicking...being able to sag off players on the perimeter knowing that they aren't going to take shots from certain areas on the court...congests the paint and makes it harder to do the very thing you are referencing.

So, yes...it is all connected in the way you guys are talking...but it is also connected the other way as well...that is why I keep bringing it back to that.

You can't ignore that it is easier to guard teams taking such a low amount of 3's.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]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]

Yeah. I agree.

And the stars would adjust.

But I do wonder if guys like James Harden would still be able to create as many shots using his style? I think it's safe to assume that he, himself, won't be as efficient due to his performance in the playoffs.

I was thinking initially that they would have to put the back to the basket and post up more instead of taking them off the dribble.

That still won't change the amount of 3s. I thought it would change the amount of open 3s thus reducing the %, but probably not. I dunno. As you said, the % probably won't be significant enough.

And definitely in transition and open shots, teams would shoot 3s. But there are other ways with use of the picks.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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]
I actually said in the statement that you agreed to that but i guess you didnt read that either.

And i obviously know how role players score but im not sure you do based on that statement because theres more role players ever scoring lots of points and shooting lots of threes. As you say its not because they're breaking guys down so whats it because of? Its because theyre open more often than not because of these defensive rules. Guys like vanfleet, dangelo Russell, lou williams, jj Reddick ect are all role players who look like border line stars in this era because of the rules. Then you have border line stars like beal, siakam, young,wiggins, booker ect who look like super stars.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23][B]I actually said in the statement that you agreed to that but i guess you didnt read that either. [/B]

And i obviously know how role players score but im not sure you do based on that statement because theres more role players ever scoring lots of points and shooting lots of threes. As you say its not because they're breaking guys down so whats it because of? Its because theyre open more often than not because of these defensive rules. Guys like vanfleet, dangelo Russell, lou williams, jj Reddick ect are all role players who look like border line stars in this era because of the rules. Then you have border line stars like beal, siakam, young,wiggins, booker ect who look like super stars.[/QUOTE]

You asked the question and then said "it sounds like"...when I've made that abundantly clear.

I'm saying this;

The rules absolutely make offense easier in the league now than it was from 98 to 04. This is without question for me.

However, before we go much further I think it is important to note that offenses made life easier on defenses back then by taking a suboptimal amount of 3's. Again, it isn't just about role players...stars didn't take enough either back then. You can't just remove stars from the equation.

Certainly there were no "rules" preventing teams from taking more 3's back in 06...I hope you'd agree with that as the perimeter rules back then might be just as soft. So, what was it....if it wasn't teams being slow to realize how many 3's they should be taking...???

Lastly, when you bring up guys like Fred...what era are you comparing now to? Are you comparing it to the 80's when teams scored about as much and played at the same pace despite not even shooting any 3's really? The early 90's when it was about the same?

That is my point...you can't start bemoaning JJ unless you tell me which era you are comparing it to. Because outside of the late 90's or early 00's...you just don't see a huge difference league wide...and, again, those old teams were not taking enough 3's by your own admission...which made defense easier.

[QUOTE=Micku]Yeah. I agree.

And the stars would adjust.

But I do wonder if guys like James Harden would still be able to create as many shots using his style? I think it's safe to assume that he, himself, won't be as efficient due to his performance in the playoffs.

I was thinking initially that they would have to put the back to the basket and post up more instead of taking them off the dribble.

That still won't change the amount of 3s. I thought it would change the amount of open 3s thus reducing the %, but probably not. I dunno. As you said, the % probably won't be significant enough.

And definitely in transition and open shots, teams would shoot 3s. But there are other ways with use of the picks.[/QUOTE]

Harden wouldn

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah. We don't really disagree on much other than the "open shot" thing I was trying to point out. Which I feel doesn't have a significance thing anyway after checking. As Warriorsfan said as simple as possible lol,

"No hand checking = can

This really isn't that complicated. For 35 years after the three-point shot was introduced, teams would rather have a player at the three-point line step up and take a long two than shoot the three. It was ignorant, it was bad basketball, but that is what was taught and believed to be the right way to play. After all, the thinking went, if you step forward it's a higher percentage shot. So time and again guys who had an opportunity to take a 3-point shot would instead step up and take a two-point shot. It had nothing to do with any rule in play at the time. Players consistently chose not to shoot open threes and instead stepped into long twos.

Then finally someone realized the math says the higher percentage volume two point shot does not generate as many points as the lower percentage three-point shot. That ephiphany is what changed the game far more than any rule change.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You asked the question and then said "it sounds like"...when I've made that abundantly clear.

I'm saying this;

The rules absolutely make offense easier in the league now than it was from 98 to 04. This is without question for me.

However, before we go much further I think it is important to note that offenses made life easier on defenses back then by taking a suboptimal amount of 3's. Again, it isn't just about role players...stars didn't take enough either back then. You can't just remove stars from the equation.

Certainly there were no "rules" preventing teams from taking more 3's back in 06...I hope you'd agree with that as the perimeter rules back then might be just as soft. So, what was it....if it wasn't teams being slow to realize how many 3's they should be taking...???

Lastly, when you bring up guys like Fred...what era are you comparing now to? Are you comparing it to the 80's when teams scored about as much and played at the same pace despite not even shooting any 3's really? The early 90's when it was about the same?

That is my point...you can't start bemoaning JJ unless you tell me which era you are comparing it to. Because outside of the late 90's or early 00's...you just don't see a huge difference league wide...and, again, those old teams were not taking enough 3's by your own admission...which made defense easier.[/QUOTE]
Ive made it clear myself i was talking about the 90's.

And its a copy cat league so yeah it took it bit of time for teams to realize that the rules made the 3 ball more useful. Phonix with nash started and teams followed and then orlando increased it a few years after and teams followed and then houston with morey after that and teams followed again. So yeah it was a slow realization But ive already agreed with you on that part. Again where we differ is how much of that increase would of been possible if the rules were different. I dont think anyone knows for sure. Again hopefully they bring back physical defence and we can find out.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ive made it clear myself i was talking about the 90's.

And its a copy cat league so yeah it took it bit of time for teams to realize that the rules made the 3 ball more useful. Phonix with nash started and teams followed and then orlando increased it a few years after and teams followed and then houston with morey after that and teams followed again. So yeah it was a slow realization But ive already agreed with you on that part. Again where we differ is how much of that increase would of been possible if the rules were different. I dont think anyone knows for sure. Again hopefully they bring back physical defence and we can find out.[/QUOTE]

When in the 90's though? 91 is a whole lot different than 98.

In 98 the drtg was 105 and the pace was 90.

In 91 the drtg was 108 and the pace was 98.

Completely different.

I don't even care to argue about what would or wouldn't have been possible to realize without the rules changing...I'm saying that it is objectively dumber to shoot so few 3's in favor of long 2's that the league used to do for most of the last 40 years.

And to ignore that taking more bad shots, like teams did, makes defense easier...is missing part of the equation.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]This really isn't that complicated. For 35 years after the three-point shot was introduced, teams would rather have a player at the three-point line step up and take a long two than shoot the three. It was ignorant, it was bad basketball, but that is what was taught and believed to be the right way to play. After all, the thinking went, if you step forward it's a higher percentage shot. So time and again guys who had an opportunity to take a 3-point shot would instead step up and take a two-point shot. It had nothing to do with any rule in play at the time. Players consistently chose not to shoot open threes and instead stepped into long twos.

Then finally someone realized the math says the higher percentage volume two point shot does not generate as many points as the lower percentage three-point shot. That ephiphany is what changed the game far more than any rule change.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Harden wouldn

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]:applause:[/QUOTE]
It's what you've been saying and you're right.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]It's what you've been saying and you're right.[/QUOTE]

I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.[/QUOTE]

Yeah.

From what I understood, could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the notion that 3pt>long 2s or anything of the sort. Or that offense now is more efficient than 80s or so.

It's the minor things. Like the rules made it easier to be able to shoot the 3 at a higher chip and/or they are more open to shoot the 3. Almost like a domino effect or the rules change just indirectly made it easier for teams to get 3pt shots.

[QUOTE=Micku]Yeah.

From what I understood, could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the notion that 3pt>long 2s or anything of the sort. Or that offense now is more efficient than 80s or so.

It's the minor things. Like the rules made it easier to be able to shoot the 3 at a higher chip and/or they are more open to shoot the 3. Almost like a domino effect or the rules change just indirectly made it easier for teams to get 3pt shots.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

My main point was just that while defense was harder to score against at times in the past...especially 98-04...offense simply wasn't as good back then either because teams simply did not understand how dumb it was to take a ton of long 2's.

That really was it...and that if you played that era again with teams knowing what they do now...I'd bet a lot of money that those offenses would shoot considerably more 3's and far less long 2's.

Shit, just look at 07...again, after the rules change;

07 - 23% were long 2's...21% were 3's

20 - 8% are long 2's...38% are 3's

You can't explain that by the rules alone. It was a shift in the mindset of players/teams because of analytics.

In no way would teams ever take 24% or whatever of their shots from 16 ft to the 3 point line like they did in the past.

[QUOTE=Micku]I think Harden has the most contested 3s in the past 4 years? Kobe used to be similar, but Kobe shot at a lower percentage. And this was post prime Kobe, so I dunno if we have the stats to see how good he was at his prime. But yeah, I think his style would be affected the most.



Maybe, maybe not. I think they would adjust the way they would get the shots, but probably still shoot it. I don't know if it'll decrease if at all. According to b-ball reference, the % of long 2s was about 23-24% of where teams attempted their shots in 03-04. The 3 was 19-20%. Nowadays it's like 38% for 3 to 8% for the long 2.

As DMAVS41 mentioned, it just coaches realizing that's the most efficient shot. The long 2 is the worst shot in basketball. I don't really see that much of a benefit performing the long 2 than shooting the 3 other than a couple of situations. 3 pt shots provide spacing, you'll get an extra point, and it allow the stars to operate with more room. If the player is a good passer, then it's a gamble to double. However depending on the player. Like if you are just that bad a shooting the 3, then just go for the 2.

The increase physical defense may lead to less open 3s, but I dunno if that's a significant % to change things up. The only thing that I can think of would be less James Harden style. Iso at the top, dribble to the paint and get a foul or kick out. Since there's less freedom, he may have to change it up a bit.

Shooting 3s is better than shooting long 2s. Now that it's known, you'll find more teams doing that despite the rules.[/QUOTE]
I agree that for the most part long threes are better than long 2's. I wonder what the percentages are for the post from than to now though. Seems like gaurds would post up alot more back then compared to now. And its it not like im saying threes would be down to 10 a game or something. Its at 33 now i believe and i was saying the rules would make it low 20's or so. Im not sure what it would be if they brought the old rules back but i know it would be less. The League would adjust like they always do and they would probably get back to alot more post play.

If what you guys are saying is true i guess college basketball never got the memo. Theyve been around the same attempts per game for the last 20 plus year. I think everyone would agree that perimeter defence in college is more like the old rules than the nba rules now. the The best college teams in the country for the last 20 plus years have consistently shot in between 18 and 24 threes a game.

Right around what i said the nba would be at if they brought back the old rules

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]When in the 90's though? 91 is a whole lot different than 98.

In 98 the drtg was 105 and the pace was 90.

In 91 the drtg was 108 and the pace was 98.

Completely different.

I don't even care to argue about what would or wouldn't have been possible to realize without the rules changing...I'm saying that it is objectively dumber to shoot so few 3's in favor of long 2's that the league used to do for most of the last 40 years.

And to ignore that taking more bad shots, like teams did, makes defense easier...is missing part of the equation.[/QUOTE]
Ok so why has college basketball shot around the same amount of threes for the last 20 plus years? Perimeter defefence in college has always been like the old nba rules to this day defenders can still grab, body, hand check and aggressively fight through screens. For the last 20 years the best college teams have shot in the 20's from threes. Why havnt they increased the amount of threes they take?

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I agree that for the most part long threes are better than long 2's. I wonder what the percentages are for the post from than to now though. Seems like gaurds would post up alot more back then compared to now. And its it not like im saying threes would be down to 10 a game or something. Its at 33 now i believe and i was saying the rules would make it low 20's or so. Im not sure what it would be if they brought the old rules back but i know it would be less. The League would adjust like they always do and they would probably get back to alot more post play.

If what you guys are saying is true i guess college basketball never got the memo. Theyve been around the same attempts per game for the last 20 plus year. I think everyone would agree that perimeter defence in college is more like the old rules than the nba rules now. the The best college teams in the country for the last 20 plus years have consistently shot in between 18 and 24 threes a game.

Right around what i said the nba would be at if they brought back the old rules[/QUOTE]

phila used to synergy stats from all time greats. There are like 5 guys who are super efficient in the post for it to be worth it. hakeem who's one of them is at roughly 1.13ppp on postups which is fantastic but can be exceeded by plenty of shooters. Jordan's another one is at 1.17.

Sources: [url]http://i.imgur.com/mI9vr92.png[/url] ; [url]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1467808[/url]

Thing about 18-24 is colleges used to shoot a lot more than the nba and 18-24 is only for a 40min game which less possessions. Analytics is just less of a thing in college basketball too and there's a far bigger talent disaprity. Coaches have a bit more job security and can get away with playing teams how they want. Pop for example who hates the 3 i'm guessing would love his teams to take only 15 3's a game but it's just really hard to win that way.

Edit: finally you're wrong about there being no increase. super simplistic analysis but the top ranked team in 2000 in 3's attempted per game was around 27 and lowest was 10. Last year there were multiple teams above 35 and lowest in the country was still like 13. Not nearly the increase you seen in the nba but there's an increase

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so why has college basketball shot around the same amount of threes for the last 20 plus years? Perimeter defefence in college has always been like the old nba rules to this day defenders can still grab, body, hand check and aggressively fight through screens. For the last 20 years the best college teams have shot in the 20's from threes. Why havnt they increased the amount of threes they take?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea. I don't know anything about college basketball. Not sure how that is related to the NBA.

Forget the why for a second though.

Are you arguing that, if you could advise a team...lets say back in the early 90's...are you saying that you wouldn't tell them they should shoot more 3's and less long 2's?

Like, what are you trying to say? That you think taking a ton of shots 16ft to the 3 point line is a good idea?

Also, why is it easier to shoot from 21 ft in terms of defense than it is from the 3 point line?

You really don't think Bibby/Webber should have been running that action higher up on the court and taking more threes? You really think both of them taking a combined 2 threes per game in the 2002 season was optimal?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I have no idea. I don't know anything about college basketball. Not sure how that is related to the NBA.

Forget the why for a second though.

Are you arguing that, if you could advise a team...lets say back in the early 90's...are you saying that you wouldn't tell them they should shoot more 3's and less long 2's?

Like, what are you trying to say? That you think taking a ton of shots 16ft to the 3 point line is a good idea?

Also, why is it easier to shoot from 21 ft in terms of defense than it is from the 3 point line?

You really don't think Bibby/Webber should have been running that action higher up on the court and taking more threes? You really think both of them taking a combined 2 threes per game was optimal?[/QUOTE]fair enough i watch alot of college ball but if you dont i wont bother going in on it.

And no im not arguing that long 2's are better or as good as threes in general. I think there are situations where a long 2 can be better but in general its better to take threes vs long 2's.

As far as bibby and webber. I definitely think bibby could of shot 3 or 4 more threes. Not sure about webber though. I think the mid range and post was a much better place for him.

And i agree with you that coaches or more specifically daryl morey was smart enough to realize that shooting more threes vs long twos is a good idea thats why i said i think the number should be in the low 20's appose to 10 or 15 or something.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]fair enough i watch alot of college ball but if you dont i wont bother going in on it.

And no im not arguing that long 2's are better or as good as threes in general. I think there are situations where a long 2 can be better but in general its better to take threes vs long 2's.

As far as bibby and webber. I definitely think bibby could of shot 3 or 4 more threes. Not sure about webber though. I think the mid range and post was a much better place for him.

And i agree with you that coaches or more specifically daryl morey was smart enough to realize that shooting more threes vs long twos is a good idea thats why i said i think the number should be in the low 20's appose to 10 or 15 or something.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not arguing Webber should have been taking mostly 3's or anything...and I'm of course assuming he could shoot them well enough, but he could really shoot for a player of his size...and took a ton of long 2's...just seems like he should have been shooting some 3's rather than really none based on what we know now.

Like, Webber was a career, in his prime, 52% TS player...I mean...that is just not very good for a player with his skillset. Like, you don't think that is an indictment in kind of how he played and how he was used? I know he was a bad ft shooter, but still. You just wouldn't have franchises do that now...they know too much. Well, actually...some are still kind of stupid...which is pathetic.

Of course long 2's are still good shots at times. In no way should they be removed completely from the game...especially for good players.

I don't know, low 20's seems really low given what we know about the game, but it would depend on the pace likely for me to know if that would make sense.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]phila used to synergy stats from all time greats. There are like 5 guys who are super efficient in the post for it to be worth it. hakeem who's one of them is at roughly 1.13ppp on postups which is fantastic but can be exceeded by plenty of shooters. Jordan's another one is at 1.17.

Sources: [url]http://i.imgur.com/mI9vr92.png[/url] ; [url]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1467808[/url]

Thing about 18-24 is colleges used to shoot a lot more than the nba and 18-24 is only for a 40min game which less possessions. Analytics is just less of a thing in college basketball too and there's a far bigger talent disaprity. Coaches have a bit more job security and can get away with playing teams how they want. Pop for example who hates the 3 i'm guessing would love his teams to take only 15 3's a game but it's just really hard to win that way.

Edit: finally you're wrong about there being no increase. super simplistic analysis but the top ranked team in 2000 in 3's attempted per game was around 27 and lowest was 10. Last year there were multiple teams above 35 and lowest in the country was still like 13. Not nearly the increase you seen in the nba but there's an increase[/QUOTE]
I dont think i was wrong about college ball. There were only 2 teams that shot more than 35 and the top teams didnt come close to that other than Auburn who shot 30. Actually if you look at the elite 8 there the highest. After that its purdue at 27, duke at 23 and it goes down from there. Alot more of the small schools shoot more threes but most of the big schools have shot under 25 a game for the last 20 plus years. That said i agree the extra 8 minutes would allow for more threes.

And yeah pop would definitely like to shoot less threes but he knows in an era where its really hard to defend the perimeter threes makes sense. Even with that since the rule changes after 04 hes still the most successful coach in the league even though hes never one of the top teams in 3 point attempts.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I definitely think there is some nuance here, but broadly speaking I completely agree with what you wrote.[/QUOTE]
Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this.

The nuance I'm talking about was more about the conversation of how physical defense would reduce some perimeter penetration which would cause the defense to collapse less...leading to some less open 3's.

I think that is a fair point.

What I don't think is a good or fair point is to pretend like shooting a lot of 3's doesn't make it much harder on the defense. Which has been my main point the entire time.

So when we go back and see the points scored per possession is pretty damn similar...and most of the time the offenses in the past were essentially guarding themselves by not shooting enough 3's...I'm saying we need to tap the brakes on saying defense just sucks now.

If it sucks now...how bad was it when teams taking 5 threes per game were essentially scoring at the same rate?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, I'm not arguing Webber should have been taking mostly 3's or anything...and I'm of course assuming he could shoot them well enough, but he could really shoot for a player of his size...and took a ton of long 2's...just seems like he should have been shooting some 3's rather than really none based on what we know now.

Like, Webber was a career, in his prime, 52% TS player...I mean...that is just not very good for a player with his skillset. Like, you don't think that is an indictment in kind of how he played and how he was used? I know he was a bad ft shooter, but still. You just wouldn't have franchises do that now...they know too much. Well, actually...some are still kind of stupid...which is pathetic.

Of course long 2's are still good shots at times. In no way should they be removed completely from the game...especially for good players.

I don't know, low 20's seems really low given what we know about the game, but it would depend on the pace likely for me to know if that would make sense.[/QUOTE] yeah maybe. With the way webber scored in Sacramento with bibby im not sure. They used him in a lot of pick and rolls or pops from the elbow or would just straight iso him at the foul line elbo area where he would use alot of jabs and fakes. Im not sure how many threes he would of been to hit efficiently that way.

He was a better 3 point shooter later in his career when he wasnt an all star anymore and he was on different teams and they were using him more of a spot up shooter so i guess Sacramento could used more in that role more maybe. Its hard to say really.

And maybe low 20's is a bit low i dont know. I wish they would bring back the old rules just for a season or 2 just to see what it be like. Either way it would be interesting.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]Nuance? Maybe. But this feels to me like an old chef complaining that the new chef gets to use kosher salt instead of table salt and that's why the new guy makes a better chicken breast. But the old chef didn't cook his chicken, not because he didn't know how, but because he was too stubborn/ignorant to realize fire revolutionizes the process of making chicken. Does using kosher salt instead of table salt make a difference? Yes, but that's really got almost nothing to do with why the new guy makes better chicken.

You had a league where guys would get benched for shooting open threes and praised for dribbling forward to take a contested long range two. Teams didn't bother to defend the three point line unless there was a well known sniper out there. They gave the mid range to guys and offensive players played right into their hands by moving forward for a mid range shot for no reason other than that's what guys have always done. It's like a dude with a lion charging at him looking at the loaded gun and deciding nah, I'll pass and use this wooden club. But that's how the NBA played for 35 years before they finally accepted the three isn't a novelty, it's a lethal weapon.

I don't know how people can claim handchecking and physical defense is what prevented the threes, when defenses regularly, intentionally left the three point line unguarded, and guys turned down open three point shots because they thought it was a bad shot.

LeBron was still doing that regularly in Miami this decade when the physical defense rules had long since changed. He's finally mostly excised that dumb step forward so the open shot is a two instead of a three from his game, but it wasn't because defense suddenly allowed him to shoot the three. It's because some analytics guy or coach finally got in his ear enough to convince him that was a stupid way to play.

Thay was a league wide self-inflicted offensive epidemic until the Rockets then Warriors changed things. In the 60s when there was no three point line, long shots were a bad idea and the whole goal was to get the ball in close. That was a smart way to play. It was engrained in everyone involved in basketball.

Then the three point line was introduced, yet that old mentality had a death grip on everyone in the league. Instantly the old way of thinking was obsolete. It wasn't just obsolete, it was flat out wrong. The three isn't just better because it's more valuable, it's better because it forces the defense to cover more space, which in turn makes things easier for the offense. It's a total revolution in the game, but no one realized it, or if they did they were viewed as kooks, for 35 years. It wasn't because there was some other structural impediment that prevented fully leveraging the value of threes, it was because old traditions die hard and people are sometimes too stubborn to see that things have completely changed.[/QUOTE]
The only problem with this is that if more three equals better than the teams that shoot the most threes should essentially win alot more and they dont. I think the only team to win while shooting more threes than anyone is the 90's rockets. Alot of the other teams that won chips arnt even close to the top three point shooting teams. The rockets the last couple years shoot way more than anyone and they still lost even though they had an mvp player and another atg great player along with a great supporting cast.

And if its that easy why dosnt a college team just come out and shoot 40 plus threes a game and crush the rest of tbe archaic top college teams that still shoot in the the low 20's?

Well this conversation took a turn. Once it was understood that the game was more tough and physical in the 90's, the conversation shifted to 2's and 3's. Good read boys!:applause:

[QUOTE=egokiller]Well this conversation took a turn. Once it was understood that the game was more tough and physical in the 90's, the conversation shifted to 2's and 3's. Good read boys!:applause:[/QUOTE]
Well thats better than it turning into lebron, kobe or mj debate i guess.

Watch the [url=https://youtu.be/1quhy0MVgsg]fourth quarter[/url] when the Spurs eliminated the Lakers 2003. Where's the physicality that is markedly different from a modern playoff game. I often see more handchecking in the modern game than what you see there, not less. Obviously offense was no where near what it is now in that era, but at the same time when I watch stuff like the clip above it's hard for me to accept the common assertion, that physicality explains the difference in eras.

Look at Shaq posting up at 3:50. Defender is using forearm on his back. That is almost always a handcheck in today's game. Shaq spins effortless off for an easy basket. At 7:10 Parker with a drive and kick that's a modern bread and butter play.

At the 12 minute mark you see some tentative hand checking by Bowen on Kobe. Game's over by then. Maybe one of those gets called today, but probably not. I routinely see refs let that stuff go. More likely the offensive player takes a shot when he puts his hand in to try to draw the foul on the arm, but the hand check probably doesn't get called.

But where are the guys who can't get the ball up the court because they have to turn their back to the basket? It's not happening.

I realize that the Pistons were a very physical defense, but when the argument is based on a singular team, it isn't much of an argument. The Lakers are three time defending Champs, the Spurs the title team this year and a great defensive team. Handchecking is almost not existent here. If it was the game changer people claim shouldn't there be a lot more of it? Of course it was actually illegal in this era, though perhaps inconsistently enforced, so maybe that's why we don't see tons of it.

Just one video, and only part of one game at that, but every time I watch old games, the physicality is far less than advertised. Highlight videos dont mean anything. Watch the games. It's really not what people keep telling us it was. They haven't watched these games since then. They remember a handful of anomalous plays and have turned the whole league into those few plays.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23][B]The only problem with this is that if more three equals better than the teams that shoot the most threes should essentially win alot more and they dont.[/B] I think the only team to win while shooting more threes than anyone is the 90's rockets. Alot of the other teams that won chips arnt even close to the top three point shooting teams. The rockets the last couple years shoot way more than anyone and they still lost even though they had an mvp player and another atg great player along with a great supporting cast.

And if its that easy why dosnt a college team just come out and shoot 40 plus threes a game and crush the rest of tbe archaic top college teams that still shoot in the the low 20's?[/QUOTE]

I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]Watch the [url=https://youtu.be/1quhy0MVgsg]fourth quarter[/url] when the Spurs eliminated the Lakers 2003. Where's the physicality that is markedly different from a modern playoff game. I often see more handchecking in the modern game than what you see there, not less. Obviously offense was no where near what it is now in that era, but at the same time when I watch stuff like the clip above it's hard for me to accept the common assertion, that physicality explains the difference in eras.

Look at Shaq posting up at 3:50. Defender is using forearm on his back. That is almost always a handcheck in today's game. Shaq spins effortless off for an easy basket. At 7:10 Parker with a drive and kick that's a modern bread and butter play.

At the 12 minute mark you see some tentative hand checking by Bowen on Kobe. Game's over by then. Maybe one of those gets called today, but probably not. I routinely see refs let that stuff go. More likely the offensive player takes a shot when he puts his hand in to try to draw the foul on the arm, but the hand check probably doesn't get called.

But where are the guys who can't get the ball up the court because they have to turn their back to the basket? It's not happening.

I realize that the Pistons were a very physical defense, but when the argument is based on a singular team, it isn't much of an argument. The Lakers are three time defending Champs, the Spurs the title team this year and a great defensive team. Handchecking is almost not existent here. If it was the game changer people claim shouldn't there be a lot more of it? Of course it was actually illegal in this era, though perhaps inconsistently enforced, so maybe that's why we don't see tons of it.

Just one video, and only part of one game at that, but every time I watch old games, the physicality is far less than advertised. Highlight videos dont mean anything. Watch the games. It's really not what people keep telling us it was. They haven't watched these games since then. They remember a handful of anomalous plays and have turned the whole league into those few plays.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I think this is mostly fair.

This is why I keep saying we need to zoom out. There just isn't enough of a huge difference in points produced on the average possession in terms of the different eras to warrant the kind of talk about defense today vs some other previous era.

I think that is separate from some of the individual production today due to the higher pace in combination with that. That is a valid point that a lot of these per game numbers are inflated. But in this thread we aren't talking about that. We are talking about defense/offense as a whole.

Especially, again, when we all know that taking a bunch of long 2's like everyone did for most of the last 40 years...was not optimal and made life on the defenses easier...and so I'm still waiting to hear how defense is so terrible now, but when the league was played at the same pace and the league was scoring virtually the same amount of points per possession...while playing objectively worse offense overall...the defense was better.

That just doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yea, I think this is mostly fair.

This is why I keep saying we need to zoom out. There just isn't enough of a huge difference in points produced on the average possession in terms of the different eras to warrant the kind of talk about defense today vs some other previous era.

I think that is separate from some of the individual production today due to the higher pace in combination with that. That is a valid point that a lot of these per game numbers are inflated. But in this thread we aren't talking about that. We are talking about defense/offense as a whole.

Especially, again, when we all know that taking a bunch of long 2's like everyone did for most of the last 40 years...was not optimal and made life on the defenses easier...and so I'm still waiting to hear how defense is so terrible now, but when the league was played at the same pace and the league was scoring virtually the same amount of points per possession...while playing objectively worse offense overall...the defense was better.

That just doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Players practiced and specialized in

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.[/QUOTE]
Na i actually agree with most of that. That point was specifically for what he was saying about offences being archaic and that shooting more threes is the end all and be all. If that was the case than all you would have to do is shoot more threes and you should be able to beat pretty much anyone but as you say its much more complicated than that.

[QUOTE=warriorfan]Players practiced and specialized in “playing objectively worse offensive basketball” as you would put it. It is a less optimal style in theory but they did it effectively enough for along time. You are chasing a what came first the chicken or the egg question when it doesn’t apply to this situation, they both dynamically grew together. [B]Defense was obviously tougher and more physical and offenses played a less efficient style of basketball but that was all they knew and they still managed to do it effectively.[/QUOTE]
[/B]

Yes, I agree with the bold.

I'm not arguing what you think I am or you are confused.

You saying they played a "less efficient style" is my point...so you agree.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Na i actually agree with most of that. That point was specifically for what he was saying about offences being archaic and that shooting more threes is the end all and be all. If that was the case than all you would have to do is shoot more threes and you should be able to beat pretty much anyone but as you say its much more complicated than that.[/QUOTE]

That isn't what he means and of course there is way more to basketball than just shooting a lot of 3's.

This seems like just trying to argue about something for no reason.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41][/B]

Yes, I agree with the bold.

I'm not arguing what you think I am or you are confused.

You saying they played a "less efficient style" is my point...so you agree.[/QUOTE]

But to them it wasn

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I really think this is flawed thinking.

You aren't even talking about defense.

Forget 3's...do you think the teams with the best offenses should win more without even knowing the defense?

There are so many other factors that go into winning other than shooting 3's...

This is not a point.

We are talking about offense...not the total strength of a team...and, you know, how good the players are on said team.

I told you this earlier...you did this with the "Lebron Ball" stuff...you never even talk about team defense...when in reality Lebron lost more often based on his team defense than he did on offense.

Like when you say you couldn't figure out why the 18 Rockets came closer to winning. It isn't complicated dude...it was because the Cavs couldn't play defense nearly as well as the Rockets.[/QUOTE]
And if you ever seen any of my other posts youd know i talk about defence all the time. Im one of the few people who thinks its as important as offence. In our conversations its been centered on straight offence. Even still ive said many times thats theres other factors and that why you cant say for sure

[QUOTE=warriorfan]But to them it wasn

the league's scoring records are almost all from the 80s. the league's field goal percentage records are all from the 80s. mostly mid to late 80s. wtf are you quipping about?

lol DMAVS

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I completely agree.

I have not once even argued players today are better. I'm saying that how teams play in terms of shooting 3's now is more optimal than taking long 2's like teams did in the past.

In no way am I implying that older players couldn't do it. In fact, older generation players might have been better suited to take more 3's and play within that style...I could see arguments for that and might actually agree.[/QUOTE]

If they grew up playing that style or gave them enough years to practice and adjust, sure.