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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.[/QUOTE]

They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]They've been increasing every year.

I know that.

I'm not debating an obvious fact. I don't know HOW MANY threes teams would've taken THEN with the current rule-set. That is my argument. Or question really.[/QUOTE]

I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.[/QUOTE]

We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]We're at 33 and counting.

How many is TOO many?

I mean, technically there's no correct answer. We gotta see this shit play out. But damn. I already think the league is becoming 3-point friendly. For my liking anyway.[/QUOTE]

Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.

Wait a minute, hold up, hold up.

I do like that you guys are bringing up the amount of iso ball that was very prevalent in the late 90s and early 00s. The defense was getting more and more abusive of the rules too.

But there were bad shots also being made and people were complaining about how the teams were playing. They did miss the fast tempo of the 80s and early 90s and say the players weren't making the smart plays. Even when I looked back at the 80s and early 90s, they did better shot selection relative to the era. It seemed to me a bunch of iso plays, even with the top teams. Some of the bad shot selection was ill advised 3pt shots, taking too many dribbles, and etc.

In the 80s, sometimes when they were open, they shot it. And they also kicked the ball down to the post and work inside and out. It's also true that defense got better over time. But what is also true in the 80s, they did not want you to drive in the paint in a half court set.

I think we should also acknowledge that a lot of the top teams in the 80s and early 90s had more offensive talent than what we saw in the late 90s and early 00s. Almost similar to the Bulls, had some plays, especially in the late 90s, where MJ just had to carry the Bulls offensively, many teams were emulating that with their sole star player. Did you guys remember how Spurs playing back then? In the 99-03? It wasn't as pretty as the Spurs in 12-14. It wasn't a motion offense it seemed. It was give the ball Duncan and hope for the best. The Raptors? AI 76ers? Compared that to the showtime Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even Pistons where they were multiple hof in their prime or still solid on the team?

The Kings were like the only team that I can think of that ran a higher pace than the others, had more passing than the other teams, and still was solid defensively and great offensively. They were pretty entertaining basketball. I guess the Mavs too. The Lakers were solid of course, but they were the duo.

Part of the reason why playing at a lower pace got popular in the first place was because of the Pistons did it in the 80s. They made defense more popular to play, especially in how they played transition defense and controlling the pace. They did it so teams like the Celts and Lakers with the amount of talent that they had won't be able to just out score them based upon talent. And as we moved to the 90s, the top teams weren't as talented as the top teams of the 80s. Everyone was adapting the Pistons. The Pistons weren't the only teams to do this tho. Jazz done it, but not as successful. The Bulls did it. The Celts did it to some extent.

The point I'm trying to make is that, it's all cause and effect.

80s were ruled by the top teams running you out the building. But they also had top talent and played the half court set very well.

Late 80s, Pistons made defense popular. They were other teams that did it, but teams paid attention to them more cuz final appearances I'm guessing. Slowing the pace down, getting back on d faster in transition. Most teams back then try to beat each other with transition.

Early 90s: heavy talent top teams were gone, Bulls ruled. Also played at slow pace. Most teams copy whoever is at the top. MJ ruled. The Pistons also did too many cheap shots, so the NBA was harsher on the hard fouls.

Mid 90s: MJ retired. League realized perimeter play increase rating and notice points were going down. Modified handchecking and put the 3pt line down to increase scoring.

Late 90s: MJ came back. Crisis avoided. Teams progressively started to slow the pace down even further.

Early 00s: Bulls MJ was no more. Teams played a super slow pace. Media tried to make a bunch of next MJs because "MJ" like brings ratings. A bunch of iso wing players. Shaq/Kobe era.

Mid 00s: A bunch of articles and complaints of some owners about the state of the NBA. Centers like Shaq, Mutombo camping in the paint. Slow ass pace. People missing the 80s. Disliking some iso ball. So, rule change to make perimeter play easier. Zone to encourage more passing and to stop Shaq. Elimination of handchecking, 3 defense second rule. Fights and I think flagrants were more punishable due to Malice at the Palace. Dress code due to NBA not liking the thuggish style. Decreasing the half court second rule from 10-8 secs. This is all in like a 2 year span or something.

Modern nba: Mike D'Antoni being the biggest influence and his Suns. And analytics. Overtime, along with the rules changing to increase freedom of movement with perimeter play, increase the tempo did happen. Value of the 3. Pop and Steve Kerr took what Mike D'Antoni did and just made some adjustments to it.

Micku...

I think most of us agree with your main points about it all being connected.

What I'm saying...is that regardless of rules...taking less than 15 threes a game is not optimal based on the basic math of NBA basketball since the 3 point line was implemented.

What the exact optimal number is will depend, of course, on the defensive rules, but in the last 40 years...there have been no version of rules, in my opinion, in which it would have been a good idea to take so few 3's like teams did in previous eras.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Right now could be too much. I won't pretend to know that.

I was talking about how they've increased over time. I think it is clear 5 threes a game wasn't enough, just like it is clear to me 15 3's wasn't enough...

Beyond that, like I said, I won't pretend to know exactly what is optimal.[/QUOTE]

Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.

[QUOTE=Micku]Who knows. I figure just work the playstyle of whoever is on your team.

The amount of 3pt shots just gets annoying when teams take it even when they are missing. And if you are down by 1 or it's tie, why would you take a contested 3? Go for the midrange or a layup if you can.[/QUOTE]

Of course.

Always extremes, but the math is really not in your favor at some point.

3's are only one part of the game, and can be both a detriment and positive.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think they would have taken more, but wouldn't have realized how many they should have been taking...which is basically in line with reality over the last 12 plus years after the rules did actually change.[/QUOTE]
I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the
perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.

Would it go down to 5 a game like the 80's? No thats way to low but it probably be in the low 20 range or so

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I dont know about that. I think your missing one important thing in this equation which are the rule changes. The rule changes are whats responsible for teams shooting more threes in this era and the last. Before the rule changes in 04 there was just as much physicality allowed on the perimeter as there was in the inside. So with all things being equal it made more sense to try to score closer to the hoop e.g in the post and mid range. Once that physicality was taken away on the perimeter but still owed on the inside it made more sense to put more emphasis on the perimeter where it was now easier and less physical than the inside. This shows in the stats through the years.

During mj's second three peat the nba was shooting 15 threes a game. It pretty much plateaued there until the defensive rule changes in 2004-05 season. From there threes starting slowly rising as teams realized with the increased space on the perimeter due to the rules it made sense to put more focus there instead of taking a more contested shot closer where physical play was still allowed.

So yes teams in the late 00's teams started to realize that it was smart to shoot alot of threes but they would of never been able to come to this realization without the rule changes in 04 and some of the ones that follwed since. If you threw these teams now that shoot all these threes in the 90's with 90's rules they would realize very quickly that the 3ball isnt as effective when defenders are allowed to handcheck, body, hold and bust through screens. All the space they take advantage of now would not be there. So with all things being equal once again they would eventually realize it makes more since to focus on the inside more because a contested close shot is more inefficient than a contested three.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc. You guys make it sound like it was all at the rim...which we all know isn't true. Players took way too many long 2's...taking a few steps back not only opens up the court more for your teammates, but also gives your team more points.

It wasn't all the rules...it was the conventional wisdom that took too long to realize how powerful the 3 really is.

For example, Iverson took 28% of his shots as long 2's...how did the rules prevent 3's...but not long 2's?

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.

You guys are inflating the impact of hand-checking on the ability to take shots. Yes, it mattered, but the notion that is was just too hard to take 3's in the modern era just isn't true...hell, it isn't even true in the toughest defensive era of the late 90's and early 00's...as 3's increased over time...

Just to make sure you are following this. You claimed that the only reason teams took more 3's was because of the rules changes...and would never have come to that realization.

Problem is, 3's steadily increased over time despite defense getting better over time. The defense, for example, was much better in the late 90's and early 00's than it was in the 80's and early 90's...however, the exact opposite of what you claim happened. As defense got better...teams slowly but surely started taking more 3's.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

So, no, defense got better, not worse from 92 to 04.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc.

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but your talking about elite players who can get a shot off whenever they want. Now yiu have guys like vanfleet who can off more thress than any of those guys.

And again teams were slow to do it for a reason as i already explained. It just wouldn't work the same with the old defensive rules. Hopefully they bring them back and we can see for sure.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree.

There was nothing in the rules preventing guys like Kobe/Bibby/Webber/Dirk/Iverson/TMAC/Iverson/Garnett...etc...etc...etc...

From taking more 3's. In fact, I'm pretty sure McGrady started taking a lot more 3's before the rules changes iirc.

Teams were slow to it. This is pretty much just a fact.[/QUOTE]

I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Yeah but your talking about elite players who can get a shot off whenever they want. Now yiu have guys like vanfleet who can off more thress than any of those guys.

And again teams were slow to do it for a reason as i already explained. It just wouldn't work the same with the old defensive rules. Hopefully they bring them back and we can see for sure.[/QUOTE]

Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug:

Also, elite players are what drives all this stuff. Kobe, for example, taking more 3's would have made him harder to guard...and if he's harder to guard...then his team is harder to guard. Not rocket science.

Lastly, please stop creating straw-mans of my argument. Nowhere have I said that this would work as well before the rules change. Not sure why you need to create a fake argument to go after...just respond to what I say.

[QUOTE=Micku]I disagree somewhat here. I think the rules will establish more open threes when they drive and kick. Stars in general could take as many 3s they want. Ray Allen took like 7 3s a game even before the rule changed. But open 3 pt shots to other ppl? When they happen to drive, the defenders could force them easier to a spot on the floor where they aren't as good at or a big guy waiting behind them.

They do that now, but it was easier before the rule changed. Nowadays it could be easier to collapse defense with driving being easier and dishing it out. But that also depends on the personal. If everyone on the floor can shoot, then it might not matter as much.

Like they could still shoot it. Nothing to stop them from shooting it. Would it be open? Maybe, maybe not. We never seen it in play at this level.

But you could be right tho. Instead of them taking the long 2, they would take the 3 instead. Would need the data on the percentage on long 2s back in the late 90s and early 00s. Like what's the percentage of the shots made. Would be nice to see the contested shots too.[/QUOTE]

Again, you guys have to really stop pretending like I'm arguing that rules had nothing to do with it. I've repeatedly agreed with that.

Another part, however, was clearly that teams were getting smarter over time and realizing the power of the 3.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, what you say is objectively false.

The average 3's per team:

04 - 15
98 - 13
92 - 8

The average 3 point rate:

04 - 18.7%
98 - 15.9%
92 - 8.7%

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE] well you conveniently used 13 in 98 but the truth is from 94 to 04 it hovered around 15. It went up and down slightly throughout that span. Then from 04 it consistently went up until it is where it is now.