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

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]

they had a shot at only having to beat a single defender [SIZE="3"][B]to reach[/B][/SIZE] the paint.

you have to beat 2 guys just [B][SIZE="3"]to reach[/SIZE][/B] the paint sometimes.

[/QUOTE]
You've identified the difference in today's era and previous eras - in today's game, ballhandlers face more defense outside the paint ("to reach the paint" as you said), and consequently, they face less defense inside the paint.

Last I checked, a ballhandler's strength is beating defenders on the perimeter and all ballhandlers love doing it - with today's defenders on the perimeter away from the paint, the ballhandler has a shot at finishing in the paint against ZERO rim protection.. Whereas previous era ballhandlers faced paint-camping... Paint-camping > floods by a mile.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]As a superstar.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_eCnTNt1Q[/url]

Shows and explains why today's superstars have it harder with zone compared to last greats.[/QUOTE]

are you serious? I hope you didn't make the vid yourself because even in the clips that are used to prove how weak the past eras were, they mentioned "double" teams coming to help. :facepalm

FACT is, MJ faced EVERY defense known past, present and more than likely future.

Isolation is still very much a part of the game. Because some players today can't take advantage it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They simply aren't smart enough, skilled enough, or athletic enough to beat it.

But is has a been shown repeatedly:

A. The zone is rarely played with any sort of consistency
B. The 'zone' isn't really a true 'zone' because it is restricted by rule changes which decrease its effectiveness
C. The zone hasn't stopped players from penetrating. Unlike popular and misleading myths, the zone doesn't stop penetrating wing players from getting to the rim. This has been backed up by a shitload of stats aka FACTS

One important thing to consider as well.

The NBA wasn't as strict at calling it by the book like they are today. The NBA officials let the defense get away with much much more than today, it's night and day at the amount of shit they didn't call.

This entire vid and argument is weak sauce that has been exposed eons ago.

I quickly clicked on 2 of Bron's greatest games. And I noticed TONS of isolations, EASY paths to the basket with uncontested layups and dunks, weak help from the defense, his inability to make smart decisions and expose the defense which led to him getting trapped, lack of explosiveness and elusiveness on his behalf and much more.

All while facing no defensive physical restrictions the entire time, which basically lets him waltz his way to any position on the floor at will.

I will make a vid dissecting every single one of these easy scoring opportunities ushered in by today's rules, purposely changed to make it easier on perimeter scorers as per NBA officials in due time.

He is an awkward awkward player with bad balance, and not as strong at finishing as one might think. Actually kinda weak finisher at times.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]As a superstar.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_eCnTNt1Q[/url]

Shows and explains why today's superstars have it harder with zone compared to last greats.[/QUOTE]




MJ virtually faced a lot of this situation like the video showed but he still couldn't be stopped.

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

Even Jordan and many others said they hated zone. Jordan didn't have to deal with it until he played with the Wizards.[/QUOTE]




He hates zone doesn't mean he can't play well against zone.

With MJ's excellent off ball movement, post up which today's perimeter players are lack of, he can easily decode the zone. Not to mention his outstanding quick first step.

[QUOTE=iamgine]So from what I gather...the rule that you have to follow your man/guard someone was indeed an official rule in the past.

How much teams was actually affected by it and how much it was enforced was the debate. There are evidence for and against it.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. Notice how most of the gifs are of the Knicks who openly pushed the limits of the rules. Notice the current era gifs are of various teams.....

[QUOTE=3ball]You've identified the difference in today's era and previous eras - in today's game, ballhandlers face more defense outside the paint ("to reach the paint" as you said), and consequently, they face less defense inside the paint.

Last I checked, a ballhandler's strength is beating defenders on the perimeter and all ballhandlers love doing it - with today's defenders on the perimeter away from the paint, the ballhandler has a shot at finishing in the paint against ZERO rim protection.. Whereas previous era ballhandlers faced paint-camping... Paint-camping > floods by a mile.[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows the eras are different 3ball, only some insecure knob jobs around here really wish to prove one is better than the other. Just as you can find gifs of open paint here, you can find ones with the paint clogged if you chose. But why would you do that? You also can find countless clips of Mj dunking with no resistance underneath the rim as well likewise, but since it doesn't fit your agenda you wont. Your info would hold much more weight if you acknowledge the other side of things and maybe even highlighted weak point from both eras and not just one.

What you've been doing here is basically post highlight clips from your favorite player over and over again.....

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]Pretty much this. Notice how most of the gifs are of the Knicks who openly pushed the limits of the rules. Notice the current era gifs are of various teams.....
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

So now the Knicks were the only team that played like that? Everyone else played that isolation defense with absolutely no help... is that your new 'debate' line? OK, let's go back 5 seasons, 1987 with the Indiana Pacers:

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/zXwjmS.gif[/IMG]

^3-2 isolation zone leads to triple team of Jordan at the top of the key and he runs into man waiting in the paint.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/CSrHmf.gif[/IMG]

^Strong side flood isolation zone, 3 bodies on MJ, forced to pass out.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/iQ7vsd.gif[/IMG]

^1-2-2 (Box and 1) isolation zone. 4 bodies waiting in the paint.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/KGA1dP.gif[/IMG]

^2-3 hybrid isolation zone leads to triple team.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/v-n-Ui.gif[/IMG]

^4 bodies clog the paint, stopping the drive, no foul. No dice.


I wonder who was keeping the shading stats back then :roll:

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]:rolleyes:

So now the Knicks were the only team that played like that? Everyone else played that isolation defense with absolutely no help... is that your new 'debate' line? OK, let's go back 5 seasons, 1987 with the Indiana Pacers:

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/zXwjmS.gif[/IMG]

^3-2 isolation zone leads to triple team of Jordan at the top of the key and he runs into man waiting in the paint.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/CSrHmf.gif[/IMG]

^Strong side flood isolation zone, 3 bodies on MJ, forced to pass out.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/iQ7vsd.gif[/IMG]

^1-2-2 (Box and 1) isolation zone. 4 bodies waiting in the paint.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/KGA1dP.gif[/IMG]

^2-3 hybrid isolation zone leads to triple team.

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/v-n-Ui.gif[/IMG]

^4 bodies clog the paint, stopping the drive, no foul. No dice.


I wonder who was keeping the shading stats back then :roll:[/QUOTE]

Well really only one of those gifs you provided really fit what I'm addressing. The rest were double and triple teams, which is what the rules of the era dictate. You had to double or guard your man. Maybe a second could be considered that as well but it's really borderline.

It's pretty dim for a guy your age to run this whole 3ball shtick. If anything the older guys should be able to make the best comparisons of the eras but this place is what it is. Just posting gifs doesn't make your assertions true cuz. You responded by posting gifs of a different team doing different things.....

Just to be clear I'm not a fan of either agenda, but I'd like to see a real conversation instead of this shit.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]Well really only one of those gifs you provided really fit what I'm addressing. The rest were double and triple teams, which is what the rules of the era dictate. You had to double or guard your man. Maybe a second could be considered that as well but it's really borderline.

It's pretty dim for a guy your age to run this whole 3ball shtick. If anything the older guys should be able to make the best comparisons of the eras but this place is what it is. Just posting gifs doesn't make your assertions true cuz. You responded by posting gifs of a different team doing different things.....

Just to be clear I'm not a fan of either agenda, [B]but I'd like to see a real conversation instead of this shit.[/B][/QUOTE]

You are absolutely full of shit my dude. I still don't even know what you're trying to 'debate' exactly.

I gave you factual, empirical data about the use of zone by the data company employed by the NBA itself... nope not good enough, they don't have 'shading' data and 'shading' is some new never before seen phenomena.

I show you specific examples from a playoff game in '92 where the defense played zone and exhibited 'shading'... nope not good enough, I was cherry-picking and the Knicks were the only team that played like that back then.

So I go back to the 80s, show you examples of the same from the Pacers... but of course you have a problem with that too.

So cards on the table time- what exactly are you trying to debate/have a conversation about?

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]You are absolutely full of shit my dude. I still don't even know what you're trying to 'debate' exactly.

I gave you factual, empirical data about the use of zone by the data company employed by the NBA itself... nope not good enough, they don't have 'shading' data and 'shading' is some new never before seen phenomena.

I show you specific examples from a playoff game in '92 where the defense played zone and exhibited 'shading'... nope not good enough, I was cherry-picking and the Knicks were the only team that played like that back then.

So I go back to the 80s, show you examples of the same from the Pacers... but of course you have a problem with that too.

So cards on the table time- what exactly are you trying to debate/have a conversation about?[/QUOTE]
There's no debate "i'm" trying to have you came in to criticize the video posted, so apparently you have the issue. I asked a question because you're being disingenuous. Playing stupid about exactly what I'm getting at screams you want no part of it. Although your lame ass know exactly what I'm getting at, I'll break it down one more time for you in slow person style so you can relate.

You posted a statistic about how often zone is used in the modern league.

I asked if it was full on zones or partial elements as well. (Shading a ball handler or half zones)

You're doing this cute little kid dance around the reason for the question.

I'm not part of whatever vendettas you got going on here bro. You know damn well that a team doesn't have to play full on zone in order to utilize advantages from the rule changes. You know exactly what significance the question has as well. You're a bulls fan correct? If so you know better bro.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]There's no debate "i'm" trying to have you came in to criticize the video posted, so apparently you have the issue. I asked a question because you're being disingenuous. Playing stupid about exactly what I'm getting at screams you want no part of it. Although your lame ass know exactly what I'm getting at, I'll break it down one more time for you in slow person style so you can relate.

You posted a statistic about how often zone is used in the modern league.

I asked if it was full on zones or partial elements as well. (Shading a ball handler or half zones)

You're doing this cute little kid dance around the reason for the question.

I'm not part of whatever vendettas you got going on here bro. You know damn well that a team doesn't have to play full on zone in order to utilize advantages from the rule changes. You know exactly what significance the question has as well. You're a bulls fan correct? If so you know better bro.[/QUOTE]

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

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

"But there was one that might be bothersome, the zone defense. It was the topic du jour at last month's All-Star Game, and [B]Jordan was making an impassioned plea[/B] before the competition committee that had gathered to consider rules changes to enliven the NBA game. [B]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/B]

And that was Jordan's argument: He believed that allowing any defense, or a zone, enables teams to gang up on the star. Gone will be the highlight-show moves and plays, the ESPN-ization of the game that others contend has been detrimental to sound play.

[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-04-01/sports/0104010375_1_defense-recommendations-nba[/url]

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]"But there was one that might be bothersome, the zone defense. It was the topic du jour at last month's All-Star Game, and [B]Jordan was making an impassioned plea[/B] before the competition committee that had gathered to consider rules changes to enliven the NBA game. [B]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/B]

And that was Jordan's argument: He believed that allowing any defense, or a zone, enables teams to gang up on the star. Gone will be the highlight-show moves and plays, the ESPN-ization of the game that others contend has been detrimental to sound play.

[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-04-01/sports/0104010375_1_defense-recommendations-nba[/url][/QUOTE]

The f*ck?

Why was Jordan complaining about rule changes when he was retired (article says early 2001, right?)? Any other articles about that or any real actual direct quotes?

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The f*ck?

Why was Jordan complaining about rule changes when he was retired (article says early 2001, right?)? Any other articles about that or any real actual direct quotes?[/QUOTE]
At that time, he already had part ownership with the Wizards and came back to play in the following season (2001-02). So maybe he didn't want the zone because he already knew he was going to play for the Wiz before he announced it? Thought it would hinder what he had left in the tank?

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]At that time, he already had part ownership with the Wizards and came back to play in the following season (2001-02). So maybe he didn't want the zone because he already knew he was going to play for the Wiz before he announced it? Thought it would hinder what he had left in the tank?[/QUOTE]

That doesn't make even a little bit of sense. Do they even let owners/current players make pleas in front of the rules committe let alone part owners/retired players? I know they accept video from GMs/coaches if it involves issues about reffing, but that's as far as I've heard. Sounds like complete hyperbole from Smith, but I'll give him benefit of the doubt. Any direct quotes/minutes from the meeting/other articles mentioning this?