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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Right, but clearly part of why it was harder to penetrate in 1987 had to do with the 3 point shot not being used appropriately.

Put it this way...if you transported the current offenses to 1987...I'd expect them to do better than they currently are doing now. Conversely, if you transported the 1987 offenses to now...I'd expect them to do worse.

So, my point, is that we have to be specific about which eras are "harder" or "easier"...huge difference between early 00's and mid 80's...

Completely agree about the progression over time...and it reached a breaking point in the early 00's...where defense had clearly won based on the rules and the game had shifted too far in that direction...hence they made the decision to free up players and change the rules...[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I agree with the efficiency on the offense.

But, I would still say the eras which were harder or easier to score depends on what are you talking about. Like for perimeter players? Yeah, kind'a if you were a driver. The paint was more clogged up back then because the spacing wasn't good. But transition defense wasn't as good either with most teams. And with talent like the Celts, 76ers and Lakers, you were gonna get outrun.

Scoring in the paint or even driving in the half court set back then was going to be tough. And another fact that, if they choose to, the hard fouls are a bitch. Some flagrant fouls now aren't flagrant fouls back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kevin Mchale clothesline on Kurt Rambis didn't get him kicked out of the game. I don't even remember if it was tech. The commentators were like, "That's just part of the game. Play ball." Not that hard fouls like that was common, but the thought of it could affect the players.

They would give you the jumper, unless you are really really good at it. Like the best in the league. Fast breaks? Go for it. Half court set, and if you can't shoot? It might take some work. But there are plenty of stars back then who did fine.

But overall defense? Better as time went on until the early 00s. Efficiency on offense is better now too. Yes, the rules helped with that but also the value of the 3 like you mentioned.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Here is my problem with this.

Current league ortg...109
1987 league ortg...108.3

Current league pace...101
1987 league pace...100.8

Current average 3's team attempts per game...34
1987 average 3's team attempts per game...5

So, if defense was so much better back then...why were they getting torched like they defenses are today? Even worse, back then, you didn't even have to worry about the 3...the offenses were very clearly playing a suboptimal strategy based on basic math.

We can argue rules and specifics...and I'll agree with a lot of what you'll likely say, but zooming out...it is kind of hard to argue that you can't play defense now, but back in 1987...they were playing real defense...while getting lit up by a laughable offensive strategy compared to now.

I guess you could argue that players were much better offensively back then, but ugh...that seems like a tough sell.

That is why I just think we have to just be specific about it being "easier now"...it is important to note that has to be relative to a specific era...because it sure as hell was a lot harder to score in 2003 than it was in 1987 and 2019.[/QUOTE] well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]well in my initial argument i was talking about the 90's so id have to see the stats for that to compare.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.

Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.

For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.

And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.

My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.

I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.

So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...

Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Your not allowed playing defence anymore so of course its harder. It has nothing to do with players being better from 3 or teams having better offence. The reason why players are getting so many open 3's and drives is because defenders arnt allowed fighting through screens anymore. So now instead of being able to fight through the screen and defend your man teams have to pick there poison. They can either switch and have a mismatch or they can double the the screener or the ball. Either way the defence is screwed because its either gonna create a mismatch or an open shot or drive. Thats pretty much every teams offence right now. Just pick any game and watch.[/QUOTE]
Totally agreed. Another thing was that the defender could hold his man a little bit back then. You can't as much anymore. But defenses ARE smarter and more deliberate nowadays than they were. They've also had to be with so many of their tools taken away.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I wasn't saying you weren't...I was just pointing out that saying "defense isn't allowed now" has to be followed up with a specific relation to another time.

Because one could say that, and be right, when tallking about the mid 80's vs the early 00's.

For the 90's...you'd have to look a specific years...but I looked up 91 real quick just to see and the ortg was 108 and the pace was just under 98.

And, of course, that isn't the end all be all...as there are going to be specific aspects of the game that are harder/easier...etc. But I do think that is a good guide about the offense vs. defense stuff...a solid place to start.

My only contention is that, even in the 91 season for example, teams were still only taking around 7 threes a game. And that not only makes a team easier to defend, but is clearly a suboptimal strategy based on the fact that you get more points for that shot.

I'm not saying that how everyone plays now is absolutely the best or optimal way to play, but it is clearly more optimal taking 25 threes a game than it is 7.

So when I see these league ratings and pace, at times, pretty close in history to now...and we all agree that taking so few threes limited offenses...it is hard for me to conclude that overall the defense just sucks now...unless it is compared to very specific timeframes...

Simply, it is just harder to defend now in my opinion because teams finally figured out that shooting more 3's is just better and taking long 2's is not optimal...it's basic math...and that makes current defenses look a bit worse than they would if they were going up against other eras of offense.[/QUOTE]
Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.

I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.

So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.

[QUOTE=FKAri]Totally agreed. Another thing was that the defender could hold his man a little bit back then. You can't as much anymore. But defenses ARE smarter and more deliberate nowadays than they were. They've also had to be with so many of their tools taken away.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i agree that you have to be a better defender now than before because now you basically cant cheat.

the game's rules actually were formerly better tasked towards stopping one player than they are now

and, there used to be contact, often hard contact, on lane penetration oft times

what people forget is that playing defense of an intimidating nature instills a sense of intimidation in the offense

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Well i dont just think defence is harder now because of the rules. More threes is definitely a factor. Not just the simple act of shooting threes but the fact that bigs are shooting threes now qnd it draws the big defenders out of the paint so now theres less rim protection. Again there losts of mitigating factors.

I just dont know how anyone can argue the fact that the league admittedly put in defensive rules to free up perimeter players to make offense easier and help increase offence. This is a fact. Its not even arguable but people keep trying to argue it. It just makes me wonder how many people on this board actually played competitive basketball. Ballers know the difference of trying to guard someone when you can arm bar, body and hand check someone vs not being able to that. On top of that you have to be careful when contesting shots now because if you land anywhere near them it could be a foul and as i said you cant even aggressively fight through screens anymore so that pretty much impossible too which leads to a bunch of problems defensively because every team sets a thousand screens a game now because of this fact.

So when i say your not allowed playing defence im obviously being a little dramatic but its definitely way harder to play defence now.[/QUOTE]

I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.

However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...

Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...

That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.

Was it really that hard to score in the paint in the 90s? If what DMavs posted is correct and the offensive rating is around the same, and you consider how few 3s were attempted, then that means the players would literally have to be scoring at the rim at a pretty high percentage. Unless everyone shot like Dirk, CP3, Curry, etc. from midrange. Even if they did it wouldn't be as efficient.

For perimeter players?

It was tougher to score in the 90s. Compared to now that just isn't debatable imo. When you remove handchecking and invoke a 'freedom of movmement' rule, where basically offensive players can never be touched, that makes it pretty clear. With that said the difference isn't what nostalgia-laden fans claim. Overall? League wide offense compared with today was around the same range. Despite not being a 'physical league', today's teams have put up respectable defensive ratings. Especially in the postseason.

The best era of defense has got to be from ~1998-2004. Both statistically and with the eye test. Most of the high volume perimeter scorers had consistent INEFFICIENT games. Some with entire seasons.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]For perimeter players?

It was tougher to score in the 90s. Compared to now that just isn't debatable imo. When you remove handchecking and invoke a 'freedom of movmement' rule, where basically offensive players can never be touched, that makes it pretty clear. With that said the difference isn't what nostalgia-laden fans claim. Overall? League wide offense compared with today was around the same range. Despite not being able to 'be physical', today's teams have put up respectable defensive ratings. Especially in the postseason.

The best era of defense has got to be from ~1998-2004. Both statistically and with the eye test. Most of the high volume perimeter scorers had consistent INEFFICIENT games. Some with entire seasons.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.

Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.

That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm not disputing what you are saying about rules post 04.

However, again...if offense is easier to be played now because of the rules, which I agree with...and we admit offense is more optimal because teams are actually shooting a shot worth 3 points more often and not taking as many bad shots...

Then when the amount of points scored per possession is virtually the same and the pace is also identical...I think you have to maybe rethink blanket statements like that when comparing the current league to the past...that is why I brought up the 80's...

That is why I keep bringing up 3's...actually take the time to imagine what a huge difference it is to take 40 3's a game to like 5. That isn't getting enough weight in these conversations.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.

If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.

Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yea, I'm talking overall...not specific types of players.

Yes, the defense was significantly better in the late 90's and early 00's compared to today, but that is also true if you compare it to the 80's and early 90's.

That was my point, you have to be specific on what timeframes we are comparing "the now" to.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem.

Teams now play exactly the same.

Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.

When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.

Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme. Without a doubt. The '04 Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.

Why are some struggling to discern the difference between a player bringing the ball up court with his back to the defender in the 90s vs bringing it up court in today's game without the need to have your back to the defender?

It's pretty obvious when you watch the games how it was more physical back then.

The reason why they had to bring it up that way back then is because actual defense was allowed to be played and it was more physical.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah i hear you but i dont think your giving enough weight to how the rules make it way easier for players to shoot threes and get quality looks. Take those rules away and yeah teams could still come down and throw up 35 threes a game but they wouldnt be getting close to the amount of space theyre getting now to be able to make them at the efficiency they're making them at. It would all of all sudden go from a smart shot to a not so smart one because the efficiency wouldnt justify it analytic wise anymore.

If it was as easy as shooting more threes than houston would of won a chip by now because theyre the godfather of the three ball and they still havnt won a chip. They havnt even been to the finals. Even if we take out the "better players" factor and just look at teams that won a chip without that advantage those teams are never the best three point shooting teams. Theres barely any even in the top 5. 2019 raptors were like 10th in threes. ill skip the warriors chips because theyve always had better players. 2015 cavs were 3rd, 2014 spurs were 17th, Miamis bron chips miami were 6th and 9th, 2011 mavs were 5th, 2009-10 lakers were 9th and 16th, 2008 celtics were 15th, 2007 spurs were 9th, 2006 heat were 9th, 05 spurs were 12th and 04 pistons were 23rd. Ill leave out the lakers because they had the better players every year.

Theres not one team that haf the best three point shooting team and out of all of those theres only 2 that were a top 5.[/QUOTE]

Of course I am...and have repeatedly said so. The rules are much easier now for perimeter players post 2004. But, that kind of makes my point actually...

The problem, again, comes back to the ratings being nearly identical...if offense is easier, which we agree, and the current offensive strategy is superior...

Then why are the ratings so similar? Again, I understand there is nuance to all this, but sometimes just zooming out is a really good starting point.

I just don't think you guys realize how easy it was to score back in the 80's and early 90's as well...players/teams were not working nearly as hard on defense as you seem to think they were.

Again, we also all agree that the late 90's and early 00's had the best defense...and what do you know...you see a significant difference in ratings...and the pace at which the game was played as well...and teams were playing closer to optimal offense in terms of shooting 3's during that time as well. Not fully because there were more bad shots being routinely taken likely than now, but clearly better than taking 5 threes a game like I've talked about.

Who cares about the attempts of recent champions when they are all in the same relative ballpark to the league they are playing in? I'm talking about huge disparities in attempts on the whole.

You make it sound like I'm arguing that shooting more 3's automatically makes you win a title. Nevermind, you actually said basically that. LOL, dude, complete strawman...not to mention, again, you need to learn that defense matters for titles...you completely leave that out of all of your analysis when it comes to Lebron ball as well.

You bring up the Rockets...care to guess how the Rockets offense has done lately?

17? 2nd
18? 1st
19? 2nd
20? 3rd

Not sure what your point is. Winning isn't all about offense. Flawed argument.