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

Zone stats are stupid

What's a zone. Define it. Now does man to man defense, with one or two players sagging off effectively covering floor to stop a superstar from getting to the hoop count as zone according to the stats?

**** no

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]Zone stats are stupid

What's a zone. Define it.[B] Now does man to man defense, with one or two players sagging off effectively covering floor to stop a superstar from getting to the hoop count as zone according to the stats?[/B]

**** no[/QUOTE]

It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.[/QUOTE]
And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?[/QUOTE]

Post some examples of the sort of help defense that exists now that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'll wait.

[QUOTE=pauk]Ofcourse? Randomly playing zone, against all players / teams makes no sense, then it isnt a zone.... [B]the whole point of zone is to stop that one guy[/B]... 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]

^After this I have zero doubts in my mind that pauk is a pretentious idiot. :facepalm
If you are not going to post that Jordan flop video don't bother posting at all clown. :whatever:

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]And are we stupid to think that help defense is the same as it was 20 years ago?[/QUOTE]

You are stupid to think bran is better than MJ. :roll:

I don't have to don

The rulebooks SAYS so

yes they might miss some illegal defense calls but it was a rule and players abide by it

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]I don't have to don[/QUOTE]

AKA your hoe card was pulled yet again and as always you bitched out.

[QUOTE][B]The rulebooks SAYS so[/B]

yes they might miss some illegal defense calls but it was a rule and players abide by it[/QUOTE]

A History lesson for you...

[INDENT]It takes about 1,000 words to define the NBA's meticulously crafted version of an illegal defense.

The authors of this less-than-historical document had reason for their long-windedness, writing with more than the integrity of the game on their minds.

``The owners told us to come up with something or they would,'' [B]said Dallas Mavericks coach Dick Motta, one of the founding fathers of the illegal-defense rules. [/B]

...
[B]So a committee that included Motta[/B], Phoenix Suns coach Cotton Fitzsimmons and then-Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson [B]came up with the current illegal-defense rules.[/B][/INDENT]

Dick Motta is a central figure in the History of NBA rule changes, specifically pertaining to defense. He was one of the people who actually came up with the illegal defense rules and he was also on the committee in 2001 that abolished them. Here's what he said in 1996 about how effective the rules [I]he literally created[/I] were in stopping the proliferation of zone defense in the NBA.

[INDENT][B]What particularly bothers Motta is that many teams try to get away with zone defenses now, content to only be penalized by a technical foul. [COLOR="Red"]"Our teams are zoning now. Rule or no rule. We're not allowed to use the word `zone' but it's a zone," Motta said[/COLOR].[/B]

-THE NBA HAS THIS RULE ABOUT ILLEGAL DEFENSE, BUT WHO CAN EXPLAIN IT, AND WILL IT EVER GO AWAY? A TWILIGHT ZONE (LA Daily News April 14, 1996 Scott Wolf)[/INDENT]

But what the f*ck does he know right? Random nigguhs like you and Pauk know more than him.

Take a bow. :applause:

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]

You can't force an iso, [B][SIZE="3"]especially in post[/SIZE][/B].

[/quote] [IMG]http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/911d3cac30b219754c53b4b156428f49.gif[/IMG]


[B]The GIF above shows that you're mistaken[/B] - this play could be run on every single possession in today's game.. However, the NBA changed the rules to enhance ball movement and dribble penetration, so these options are normally preferrable to post play.. But all we have to do is look at the post-up efficiencies of today's weaker bigs to estimate how the superior bigs of previous eras would do.

Al Jefferson and others currently [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200][u]lead the NBA[/u][/url] in points per possession (PPP) on the post, and they're all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

But if this were 1996, Jefferson would be no higher than 11th, behind Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Alonzo, Sabonis, Karl Malone, Barkley, Webber, and Kemp.. The elite post efficiency from today's 2nd tier bigs flat-out proves today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies.


[quote=ILLsmak]

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.

[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif[/IMG]


[B]You are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments[/B] - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in the GIF above?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.

Btw, why hang your hat on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down, so someone is always open.. Paint-camping is much better - [I]infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned[/I].. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, and legal paint-camping.
.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Come back when you actually have something to say, bruh.[/QUOTE]
I already explained what my message was man, if you want to keep up this little kid shit go ahead, you say shading a player on the floor is help defense right? You keep harping on how the rules are different and pasting paragraphs dipshit, obviously there's a correlation to how help defense can be initiated. Whether or not guys did it as a rule breaking strategy that they could get away with at times is not my concern. The thing is its freely available without having to "cheat" in order to execute it in the modern day, so it's not a let's see if we can get away with it deal.

Last time I say this, as bulls fan if you can't understand the importance of being able use elements of zone in coverage then you're either:

A. An idiot
Or
B. Being a b*tch for no good reason on the net.

Either way it's not a good look.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]

the importance of being able use elements of zone

[/QUOTE]
[i]Shading and flooding gives up paint and rim protection.[/i]

Also, people mistakenly think it's a problem for guards to face multiple defenders on the perimeter.. By definition, that's exactly what a ballhandler's strength and advantage is.. Ballhandlers love taking on defenders on the perimeter - it's much more preferable than facing defenders and resistance in the paint.

From the big's perspective, shading forces bigs to give up their advantage of contesting smaller players at the rim (previous era paint-camping), for a disadvantage of contesting guards on the perimeter (today's flooding/shading).

Also, you are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments that allow paint-camping - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in [url=http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif][u]this GIF[/u][/url]?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.


[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]

the importance of being able use elements of zone

[/QUOTE]
And why have your entire argument rest on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down so someone is always open, and the compensating rotations open up room for error.. Also, by forcing defenders to defend outside the paint, flooding/shading give up rim and paint protection.. Contrastingly, paint-camping allows everyone to stay at home and defends the paint much better - paint-camping has been long-proven as the most equitable and least exploitable way to defend the floor, especially the paint..

[I]Infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned.. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods and hang your entire argument on them.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, legal paint-camping, and [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]more difficult penetration[/u][/url].[/i]

[QUOTE=3ball][i]Shading and flooding gives up paint and rim protection.[/i]

Also, people mistakenly think it's a problem for guards to face multiple defenders on the perimeter.. By definition, that's exactly what a ballhandler's strength and advantage is.. Ballhandlers love taking on defenders on the perimeter - it's much more preferable than facing defenders and resistance in the paint.

From the big's perspective, shading forces bigs to give up their advantage of contesting smaller players at the rim (previous era paint-camping), for a disadvantage of contesting guards on the perimeter (today's flooding/shading).

Also, you are forgetting that floods aren't applicable to no-spacing environments that allow paint-camping - floods naturally occur in no-spacing environments because defenders are already in such close proximity.. Does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed in [url=http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif][u]this GIF[/u][/url]?.. That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.



And why have your entire argument rest on floods anyway?.. Strong-side floods leave the weakside a man down so someone is always open, and the compensating rotations open up room for error.. Also, by forcing defenders to defend outside the paint, flooding/shading give up rim and paint protection.. Contrastingly, paint-camping allows everyone to stay at home and defends the paint much better - paint-camping has been long-proven as the most equitable and least exploitable way to defend the floor, especially the paint..

[I]Infact, floods are only necessary because paint-camping was banned.. This is a fact - so it's not rational to brag about floods and hang your entire argument on them.. Previous eras can hang their hat on factors far more impactful and significant than floods, including no spacing, hand-checking, physicality, legal paint-camping, and [url=http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html][u]more difficult penetration[/u][/url].[/i][/QUOTE]
I agree that if you flood you have to give something up, there's a way to beat each defense it's been that way forever. My "argument" doesn't rest on floods at all, I asked a question that a fool couldn't answer straight so he resorted to acting like a child. It's mind numbing that you guys can't admit the smallest inconsistency in your arguments. The most obvious downfall to facing floods/shading is guys being forced into jumpshots in spots on the floor they don't want them in. That's really the goal most times isn't it? I'm not the one with the agenda here though, that much is obvious. I do recognize the difference in the eras but it just means exactly that. They are different, can't really say one is more difficult than the other because they face different obstacles.

[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]

95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.

the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.

if you are playing a 2-3 today, im not surprised that you would get lit up, but thats not the point.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]It's known as 'help defense'. It's an industry term.[/QUOTE]

today thats help defense, 15 years ago it was illegal zone defense

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Post some examples of the sort of help defense that exists now that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'll wait.[/QUOTE]

the video in the op is full of examples.

[QUOTE=chips93]95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.

the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.

if you are playing a 2-3 today, im not surprised that you would get lit up, but thats not the point.[/QUOTE]
Exactly

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]I already explained what my message was man, if you want to keep up this little kid shit go ahead, you say shading a player on the floor is help defense right? You keep harping on how the rules are different and pasting paragraphs dipshit, obviously there's a correlation to how help defense can be initiated. Whether or not guys did it as a rule breaking strategy that they could get away with at times is not my concern. The thing is its freely available without having to "cheat" in order to execute it in the modern day, so it's not a let's see if we can get away with it deal.

Last time I say this, as bulls fan if you can't understand the importance of being able use elements of zone in coverage then you're either:

A. An idiot
Or
B. Being a b*tch for no good reason on the net.

Either way it's not a good look.[/QUOTE]

Again you type paragraphs about absolutely nothing. When you're off you're period and you want to discuss basketball, let me know.

[QUOTE]95% of defense today would be considered zone defense based on the old rules.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no... no it wouldn't/

[QUOTE]the definition of zone defense today, the one that synergy uses, is different to the definition of zone from the old rules.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... no. People just don't know the difference between an actual zone and man defense with help.

[QUOTE]today thats help defense, 15 years ago it was illegal zone defense

the video in the op is full of examples.[/QUOTE]

I posted a ton of examples from whole games of teams playing actual zone, 'shading' with help, etc from the early 90s and even late 80s without any violations being called. Everything in the video and then some. People caught feelings and accused me of 'cherry picking' :lol