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

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

Stu Jackson said it brother

No discussion required

It's STU JACKSON!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Hey Yo][I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.
[/I][/QUOTE]
In 2001.........Two thousand fuking one.......Before the hand check rules....Or are you going to continue to ignore this basic fact because it ruins your argument? In fact, there has been all kinds of shit posted that ruins your argument. You're just stubborn or you just hate MJ that much.....Its not healthy.....

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

[B]The NBA[/B] said it brother

No discussion required

It's [B]the NBA[/B]!!!!!!

[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="3"]Here's the NBA officially stating how the rule changes had accomplished their objective of increasing dribble-penetration.. This is from the source - the NBA was the creator and implementor of the rules, so it's not subjective opinion, just like Warren Buffet's vision for Berkshire Hathaway isn't subjective opinion.. The NBA changed the rules to make penetration easier, and it worked - it's a fact:[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html[/url]


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. [COLOR="Red"]Players are penetrating and the floor is spread.[/COLOR] As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. [COLOR="Red"]By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more[/COLOR], it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: It doesn't. [COLOR="Red"]With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration[/COLOR], cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: [COLOR="Red"]Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration[/COLOR], two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


[i]NBA.COM[/i]: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

[i]STU JACKSON[/i]: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. [COLOR="Red"]The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.[/COLOR]

Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu!

It's a TEAM game now baby!

Stu confirmed it!

No more ultra scrubs putting up 30 a game like Adrian Dantley or Kiki Vandershitscrub!

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]

Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu!

[/QUOTE]
[B][I]The NBA would never let him say that if it wasn't true.. He was officially representing the NBA in those statements.[/I]
[/B]

[QUOTE]

Al Jeffereson would be a 2nd tier bigmen in 1996 - no better than the 12th-best:

Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
Ewing
Alonzo
Sabonis (25 PER - unbelievable all-round talent)
Karl Malone
Barkley
Webber
Kemp

And he'd probably be behind Rik Smits, Vin Baker, Dino Radja, and certainly Derrick Coleman.

[/quote]
Not only is penetration easier today, but post scoring is too.. The post efficiencies of today's bigs lets us know how the superior bigs of previous eras would do today - Al Jefferson and others would be considered a 2nd tier bigs in previous eras, yet they are league-leaders in [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200][u]post efficiency today[/u][/url], and they're all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

This elite post efficiency from 2nd tier bigs [I]flat-out proves[/I] today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies... The only reason coaches don't use post-ups as much as before is because floor-spacing and the hand-check ban increased efficiencies on ball movement and dribble penetration, allowing these methods to SURPASS post-ups.. But Al Jefferson scoring 1.00 PPP on the post proves that post efficiencies THEMSELVES haven't diminished at all.

Also, if we are keeping it real, simple logic tells us that today's spacing and defensive 3 seconds rule force defenders to help from further distances on post players.. So even without the Al Jefferson proof, it makes sense that post PPP is higher today than it used to be.. After all, [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]everything else[/u][/url] is.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]Stu Jackson, baby

Cookin' up a Stu![/QUOTE]

This is you right now:

[IMG]http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo248/scaredmomma3/WhiteFlag.gif[/IMG]

Game Over.

Point guards dropping 25/10 and STILL not being an all-star in the 80's!

WOW!

[QUOTE=3ball][SIZE="3"]Here's the NBA officially stating how the rule changes had accomplished their objective of increasing dribble-penetration.. This is from the source - the NBA was the creator and implementor of the rules, so it's not subjective opinion, just like Warren Buffet's vision for Berkshire Hathaway isn't subjective opinion.. The NBA changed the rules to make penetration easier, and it worked - it's a fact:[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html[/url]


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. [COLOR="Red"]Players are penetrating and the floor is spread.[/COLOR] As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. [COLOR="Red"]By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more[/COLOR], it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: It doesn't. [COLOR="Red"]With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration[/COLOR], cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.


[I]NBA.COM[/I]: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

[I]STU JACKSON[/I]: [COLOR="Red"]Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration[/COLOR], two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


[i]NBA.COM[/i]: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

[i]STU JACKSON[/i]: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. [COLOR="Red"]The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/I]

I haven't read any of this thread.

I bet that "Stu Jackson" has been mentioned >10 times. Somebody on this forum cares about Stu Jackson more than the mans own family.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo][I]Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.[/I][/QUOTE]
I'm convinced you and I'm still balling are the same dude because you either are both dumb as ***, or can't read, or can't add, or are stubborn, or haters, or probably all the above..And I really try not to insult posters on this forum...But its very obvious you 2 have run out of arguments and you have nothing else to add.. I don't understand why you guys even continue to post in this thread or any threads related to this topic......

[SIZE="6"]Look at the date of your article - April 2001 - MJ had no idea the new zone rules would LATER be accompanied by the hand-check ban in 2005, because when he found out about the hand-check and physicality ban, this is what he had to say (from 2010):

[B]“It’s less physical and the rules have changed, obviously,” said Jordan. “Based on these rules, if I had to play with my style of play, I’m pretty sure I would have fouled out or I would have been at the free throw line pretty often and I could have scored 100 points.”[/B][/SIZE]

And in case you didn't know, 2010 is 9 years after 2001.

[QUOTE=Poetry][I]"No team played zone on more than 10 percent of defensive possessions last season, per Synergy Sports. Dallas became known as the zone team in 2010-11, but they played a hybrid man zone more than a straight zone, and they did that on a small minority of possessions.

[B]The league overall actually scored more efficiently against zone than man last season, according to Synergy.[/B]" [/I]

Grantland, 2012[/QUOTE]

Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy... and there are very few of those.... thats when it is initiated.... when the Lebrons play.... and that 10% now makes perfect sense, but for the Lebrons its 60-100%....

What "synergy" needs to do is find out how those superstar scorers produce zone vs man.... unfortunately that test wont turn out in your favor i can promise you that, because logically no guy scores better against 5 guys rather than 1....

This doesnt take away from Jordan, he was a great player, he would do great against any defense, but even he will tell you everyday that he would do much better without the zone.....

This is not about Jordan or Lebron/Kobe, era vs era...... this is strictly about Zone im talking about.... its bad, harder to score inside... any superstar scorer (especially the perimeter ones) will tell you the same....

[QUOTE=pauk]Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy... and there are very few of those.... thats when it is initiated.... when the Lebrons play.... and that 10% then makes perfect sense, but for the Lebrons its 60-100%....[/QUOTE]

Holy shit, in a sea of misinformed posters you may have just won Belle of the Ball :wtf:

First the point of playing zone or 'zone' isn't to stop one player. It's a way for a coach to hide weak defenders by taking them off specific players. Depending on the set, it can help prevent drives to the basket, trap the ball in specific areas (including the backcourt on presses).

And where are you getting that LeBron sees 60-100% zone? :oldlol:

That's just a ridiculous number you pulled out of your ass.

[QUOTE=Dro]Answer this basic question or your thread is a fail. If zone is so effective, why don't teams play it more than 10% of the time? Simple question...[/QUOTE]

I Think this era of ball is shat, but I can, without watching the video, make a comment.

It's easier not because they play full zone but because the d cant be moved like it used to. You can't force an iso, esp in post.

If im guarding reggie evans and you bring him to the weak side, I dont have to follow him. That's enough to drastically change the game.

And without touch fouls I bet scoring would be v low.

-Smak