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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]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]

So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense?

Do you understand my confusion?

[QUOTE=72-10]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]

That actually makes my point.

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense.

Do you understand my confusion?[/QUOTE]

Lebron hand picked an offensive minded team of shooters and stretch bigs, he chose to not play defense. I don’t see how his teams poor defense is not his fault.

[QUOTE=warriorfan]Lebron hand picked an offensive minded team of shooters and chose to not play defense. I don

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Can we please not do this.

That isn't, at all, what we are discussing here.

Start a new thread if you want to talk how much more of a negative impact on defense Lebron was in 2018 than James Harden.

Just please don't do it here.[/QUOTE]

You asked the question, not me. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=warriorfan]You asked the question, not me. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I asked it to someone else...and, again, you are so deranged when it comes to Lebron...that you think you answered the question.

Which you didn't.

Won't respond again on this topic.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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]
Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.[/QUOTE]

I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

Think about that logic for a second.

You talk about before the rules changed. Back in 04, for example, 23% of the shots in the league came from 16 ft to the 3 point line...while 19% came at the 3 point line. You really don't think offenses could have just chosen to flip those numbers...or gone over 25% from 3? What makes a 21 foot shot so much easier to get than a 24 footer?

We all know what is was. It was the conventional wisdom that teams that take too many 3's don't win...etc....that was preventing teams from taking those shots. It was the lack of basic math reasoning and analytics.

Are you really surprised...think of how pathetic the NFL has been on when to go for 2...teams literally just figured out that going for two on the first score while down 14 late in games...is a good thing. This should have been figured out the day the 2 point conversion became an option.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense?

Do you understand my confusion?[/QUOTE]
Dude i wasnt pretending. Again it was in response to the other dude who basically said shooting more threes makes a huge difference and that the teams that dont are archaic and dumb. In that scenario which he presented all you would have to do is shoot way more threes and in theory you should win.

As far as the lebron cavs vs rockets giving the warriors a go i honestly dont remember that Exact convo so i cant say for sure. Im assuming it was an offence related topic about something specific so i was leaving the other factors like defence out of it. Or maybe i was just playing stupid to try to prove a point which i can do from time to time even though for the most part i try to keep it real but i really dont Remember tbh.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

Think about that logic for a second.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not. sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right. You think they could of shot way more.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]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]

i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.


Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. [B]I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right.[/B] You think they could of shot way more.[/QUOTE]

Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.


Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.[/QUOTE]
I dont agree with your college point. Almost All the top schools still shoot in the low 20's. College sports are huge and winning means alot. If all one the coaches had to do was shoot 40 threes instead of 20 to win they woukd of done it by now. Theres some pretty smart coaches in the ncaa but they know with rules how the defensive rules how they are it wont work. That said thy never have shot alot of long 2's they focus mainly on drives post and threes.

As far as last years warriors go im not arguing that teams now should shoot 20 threes. With the defensive rules the way tbey are in the nba on the perimeter teams should shoot a crap ton of threes. What i was saying was if the rules back to pre 2004 the optimal number of threes would drop to the low 20's like the college game and like the nba was before the rule changes. It could probably be even a little higher than that but it would definitely drop.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?[/QUOTE]
No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant and again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.[/QUOTE]

But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

04 - 23% to 19%
03 - 24% to 18%
02 - 23% to 18%
01 - 23% to 17%

This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?

[QUOTE=Showtime80']LOL at these isolated clips!!! Go look at ANY clips from the perimeter manufactured stars after the 2005 defensive highjack and you see a red carpet stroll down the lane when the NBA basically neutered defenses.

Here's a clip of Steve Nash, a guy who played from 1997 to 2014 and won two MVP's in 2006 and 07 thanks to the rule changes the NBA put in, breaking it down to a basic level and confirming how people like David Stern, Rob Thorn and Jerry Colangelo to name a few altered all the defensive rules starting from the mid 90's (after the panic of the MJ

[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]

This is more leading to a different conversation. But still relevant since it addresses the defense and to the main topic other than the 3 pt shot.

Hand checking was still prevalent there. I haven't watched the 03 series in a looooong time. But another series you could also see is 04 spurs vs lakers. I'm sure you seen it before, but there you can find where players do put their forearm on their hip to dictate and slow the ball handler movement. And Tony Parker did proceed to put the pressure on GP a few times to the point where he had to do a spin move or turn his back.

It happens.

You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM[/url]

But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

04 - 23% to 19%
03 - 24% to 18%
02 - 23% to 18%
01 - 23% to 17%

This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?[/QUOTE]
Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.[/QUOTE]

Those are the numbers.

The first percentage is the percentage of long 2's and the second number is the percentage of 3's.

Percentage is better to use than attempt numbers because the pace of the game impacts the per game stats...while the rate isn't impacted as much by that.

Currently, for reference, only 8% of shots are long 2's and 38% are 3's.

Like I said earlier...I won't pretend to know that optimal ratio...but it absolutely is not more long 2's than 3's...

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.[/QUOTE]

On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted on average. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.


There is another site that tells you the number.
[url]http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx?yr=2007&type=pg[/url]

You can see in 07:
the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.

[QUOTE=Micku]On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.


There is another site that tells you the number.
[url]http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx?yr=2007&type=pg[/url]

You can see in 07:
the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.[/QUOTE]

Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.

[QUOTE=Micku]You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM[/url][/quote]

I don't think any of the moments you mention would be called fouls today. Maybe the handcheck at 29, but the one that might be called a foul I can't really see because a body is in the way. There are two others on that play that wouldn't be called today. What Duncan does at the seven mark is nothing compared to what guys get away with today. When players get into the post they are often bulldozed away from the basket by the defender. Look at the following video from the Lakers/Clippers game this year. Lots of handchecking going uncalled.

[url]https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8[/url].

It is far more common in today's game than people seem to realize. A guy getting handchecked when his back is to the basket is normal. Guys usually won't handcheck when the offensive player faces up, because they're worried about the rip through or shot foul, not the handcheck foul.

[quote]But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree that inside spacing was bad then. But I think it was primarily due to offenses being singularly focused on getting inside shots. If that's the only look your offense wants then it makes things easy on the defense. They can just collapse because they're not made to pay for not defending the perimeter. It's an offensive choice that creates the issue, more than it being something defense and physicality in particular forced.

Check out the first quarter of the [url=https://youtu.be/E7lZYgXHdQw]2004 Nets/Pistons series[/url]. A few things jumped out at me from that. Like there's a moment where Billups takes a pull up three early in the possession at 19:30. Coach gets pissed and announcers are talking about how he should try to make something happen inside instead of taking that shot early in the clock.

Basically every ball handler in the league takes that shot now. That in turn opens thing up inside. But they wouldn't take that shot then and it made things easier on defenses.

It's also funny to hear the announcers complaining about flopping. Happens in the first quarter, but I didn't note where.

The spacing inside though except maybe in transition wasn't there. It was a crowded paint. Despite that, both teams were trying to force it in instead of leveraging the power of the three. That's the issue. Offenses just had the wrong mindset.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.[/QUOTE]
Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144[/url]
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144[/url]
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...[/QUOTE]
I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?[/QUOTE]
Number of shots.

I agree there are times where teams should be looking for something other than threes. One example is in the waning seconds when you don't need three points. Let's say you're up two with 30 seconds to go. Now the best shot is probably the highest percentage shot you can get, not the three. I'd rather see a 48% midrange than a 35% three, even though the three yields more points in the long run. (105 per 100 for the three, 96 per 100 for the two) In that instance you don't have enough chances to get value out of that lower percentage about.

Your also see teams who have two on one's at the basket on a breakaway kicking out for threes instead. That's generally the wrong play. 80% from 2 yields more than 50% from three so why kick it out there. Plus you might draw a foul which is even better.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]I agree there are times where teams should be looking for something other than threes. One example is in the waning seconds when you don't need three points. Let's say you're up two with 30 seconds to go. Now the best shot is probably the highest percentage shot you can get, not the three. I'd rather see a 48% midrange than a 35% three, even though the three yields more points in the long run. (105 per 100 for the three, 96 per 100 for the two) In that instance you don't have enough chances to get value out of that lower percentage about.

Your also see teams who have two on one's at the basket on a breakaway kicking out for threes instead. That's generally the wrong play. 80% from 2 yields more than 50% from three so why kick it out there. Plus you might draw a foul which is even better.[/QUOTE]
Yeah those are definitely some examples. The other i gave mavs was basically what the article i sent him was about concerning the warriors use of the midrange. In an efforr to reduce the amount of threes the warriors shoot teams focus on crowding the warriors at the three point line in an effort to run them off it into the paint to where the defence is waiting to collapse. In an effort to do this teams are basically gifting them the mid range to which the warriors often oblige. It would be stupud of them to just force a tough contested three when they can get an open midrange. Yeah All things being equal a three is better than a midrange but a contested three is not better than an open midrange. This is one of the reasons why houston cant win a chip. While the warriors have adapted over the years and started taking more midrange shots houston seeks hell bent on proving there point of the more threes the better.

That said i already agreed that more often than not a three is better than a long 2. We just disagree on how many would be smart in era where the rules allow for more physical play which would allow teams to contest threes even better. I think teams would adobt an approach more similar to the warriors and it seems like you and mave would more or less take the houston approach.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Number of shots.[/QUOTE]

Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.[/QUOTE]
Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.[/QUOTE]

So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?[/QUOTE]
Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.

How was 5"2 120 pounds Mugsey Bogue's able to average a double double in such a physical era :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.[/QUOTE]

Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's?????

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's?????[/QUOTE] ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]ok well then i have it wrong as far as attempts. I thought it was the early 2000's that were at low 20's but its the early10's. Thays obviously were some confusing was so thats my bad.

As far agreeing with the long 2's being worse than threes im for the most part agreeing i think. It sounds like your saying 3's are alway better than the mid range and what Im saying is that i agree open threes are better then open mid range and contested threes are better than contested midrange but contested threes arnt better than open midrange. Also some players are just better from mid range than from three. I dont its better for these guys to shoot threes over mid range. So i guess i agree but dont in a way.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not saying that 3's are always better. That would be an absurd opinion.

What I'm saying...and have been saying...is that teams should not be taking more long 2's than 3's...on the whole.

In a specific game or something? Sure, I could think of circumstances that would make that actually better.

But on the whole in terms of the league averages? Nah, taking more long 2's was stupid.

That is what I'm arguing...and very clearly for most of the last 40 years...teams did not have this figured out...and it made the life of defenses easier than it is now.

And then when you follow that thinking through...you realize that most defenses in the past were giving up roughly the same amount of points per possession (outside of 98-04) and some other years while facing offenses easier to guard.

So, like I said from the jump, when I hear defenses suck now...I need to know exactly what that relative comparison is to. Because it sure as hell isn't the 80's or early 90's...when teams were scoring at a very similar rate despite taking well below the optimal amount of 3's...and were taking way too many long 2's.

That was where this started.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]I don't think any of the moments you mention would be called fouls today. Maybe the handcheck at 29, but the one that might be called a foul I can't really see because a body is in the way. There are two others on that play that wouldn't be called today. What Duncan does at the seven mark is nothing compared to what guys get away with today. When players get into the post they are often bulldozed away from the basket by the defender. Look at the following video from the Lakers/Clippers game this year. Lots of handchecking going uncalled.

[url]https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8[/url].

It is far more common in today's game than people seem to realize. A guy getting handchecked when his back is to the basket is normal. Guys usually won't handcheck when the offensive player faces up, because they're worried about the rip through or shot foul, not the handcheck foul.



Totally agree that inside spacing was bad then. But I think it was primarily due to offenses being singularly focused on getting inside shots. If that's the only look your offense wants then it makes things easy on the defense. They can just collapse because they're not made to pay for not defending the perimeter. It's an offensive choice that creates the issue, more than it being something defense and physicality in particular forced.

Check out the first quarter of the [url=https://youtu.be/E7lZYgXHdQw]2004 Nets/Pistons series[/url]. A few things jumped out at me from that. Like there's a moment where Billups takes a pull up three early in the possession at 19:30. Coach gets pissed and announcers are talking about how he should try to make something happen inside instead of taking that shot early in the clock.

Basically every ball handler in the league takes that shot now. That in turn opens thing up inside. But they wouldn't take that shot then and it made things easier on defenses.

It's also funny to hear the announcers complaining about flopping. Happens in the first quarter, but I didn't note where.

The spacing inside though except maybe in transition wasn't there. It was a crowded paint. Despite that, both teams were trying to force it in instead of leveraging the power of the three. That's the issue. Offenses just had the wrong mindset.[/QUOTE]

That clippers vs Laker game! Yeah, that's true. It happens sometimes. It happens more in the playoffs than it does in the regular season with the hand checking. It depends at the leisure of the refs. But it's a foul. And sometimes they call it. Players and commentators would say something like "They are letting them play tonight" or whatever. Sometimes they don't call defensive 3 sec unless a player or coach comment on it.

But it's a foul. At one hand, you'll let the players play on the other, you'll get fouls like:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-TFrAMIoE[/url]

When LeBron tries to drive to the rim, PJ Tucker is all over him. Stopping his momentum with the elbow to the hip and everything. He looks a the ref and ask for the foul cuz James Harden and CP3 were getting that. But similar to Shaq, the refs would treat LeBron differently. And Harden and CP3 are better at selling it. They were articles on it, on the game, on James Harden too. But everyone knows the inconsistency of the refs.

[url]https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lebron-james-lakers-rockets-no-hands-defense-james-harden-video[/url]

It's almost a little unfair comparison because of the RS vs playoff games. Like here:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m28s[/url]
the handchecking on MJ should be a foul called today.

And here:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L6eTZdG-I#t=1h29m40s[/url]
a similar play where Harden got "tripped" up. But the refs made a mistake, and you see that play go either way. A foul or no foul.

But there was a 70s game where some teams were doing full pressure and hand checking at the hip, and I was shocked. Like even though the 80s and early 90s could kind'a do that, it wasn't done normally. They usually don't bother until they get inside the 3pt line. And if you are a good shooter. Or if they really try to force a turnover.

But the point is, yeah. You'll still find some hand checking in today's game. It depends on how the refs call it. It's the same throughout basketball life. It just with nowadays, there are more rules to follow when it comes to contact. And the freedom of movement thing, eliminates some of the tricks players could do of defending screens. They can't really hold the screener or hold anybody in general I think. Sometimes the refs may not call it or miss it, but if they see it and they choose to call it, then it's a foul. And it wasn't like two years ago?

But me and you both agree that the lack of spacing is the main thing.

I dont see the need to debate that the league was more physical in the 80s-90s. The game was played at a shorter range, handchecking and harder fouls were allowed compared to today. This is not necessarily a knock on todays game. The game changed, it called for a different brand of gameplay. Less physicality, more outside shooting, and more space. Why does this generation have to be best at everything and can not be criticized or commented on in any way?

Game back then presented its own challenges players then, as much as the game now presents challenges to the players now. Was is jerry wests fault that he played in an eta where they could only palm the ball? Is there any doubt that if jerry west were born today he would be able to play with better handles than what he had in the 60s?

What would be worth noting is how much does one great player stand out from his peers in his era, and how he is able to impact the game.

[QUOTE=Airupthere]I dont see the need to debate that the league was more physical in the 80s-90s. The game was played at a shorter range, handchecking and harder fouls were allowed compared to today. This is not necessarily a knock on todays game. The game changed, it called for a different brand of gameplay. Less physicality, more outside shooting, and more space. Why does this generation have to be best at everything and can not be criticized or commented on in any way?

Game back then presented its own challenges players then, as much as the game now presents challenges to the players now. Was is jerry wests fault that he played in an eta where they could only palm the ball? Is there any doubt that if jerry west were born today he would be able to play with better handles than what he had in the 60s?

What would be worth noting is how much does one great player stand out from his peers in his era, and how he is able to impact the game.[/QUOTE]

It's the comparison from one era to another. Doc Rivers said to Rondo one time that he would have a tougher time back then than he does now. Wilt told MJ one time that the league changed and it's easier for MJ now than it was back then, where they made to rules to slow down from Wilt to dominate.

A few commentators now complain about how certain foul calls are called today that simple "touch" fouls that weren't called back in their day.

For us, we sometimes debate about the stats, and whatever or not they are impressive given the rules change or not.

It's natural it seems to compare. But the players themselves are not at fault. And the eras are too different to compare. The playstyles, the rules, pacing, the coaching. As you said, it's better to acknowledge which player stands out the most out of the era. It does seem that superstars could adapt, no matter the rules, but to compare stats across eras I feel like is pretty tough.