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

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]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.[/QUOTE]

I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.

[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]

For the vast majority of stars, there

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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]

You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.

[QUOTE=Micku]You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.[/QUOTE]

No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?

[QUOTE=Micku]You just said that you disagreed with his argument of rule changing increasing the 3pt shot attempts.

Like I know you said rules has something to do with it, but you guys are disagreeing the significance of the rules. And the wisdom of the coaching staff on the value of the 3.

I only disagree with you half way. And I'm just talking about how open the shots were. The only way to check it out is by the % in my case. Maybe by contested shots, but I don't think there is a way to check up the data on it. I agreed with you that the knowledge of value of the 3 just increase the shot attempts, but wonder how many shots would they take if they weren't open. I wonder if the % would go down or whatever.

I checked it, and it's not really significant. I thought it was lower by memory. Well, the modern day do have higher percentages, but it isn't that much to really say. Plus nowadays you have more teams that practice that shot.

But I wasn't talking about stars. I was talking about the role players. Stars in general could do whatever they want.[/QUOTE]

Yea I think you can only check contested shots from recent years. However if you’re talking about role players, a lot of their midrange shots were open. It was pretty often you see a guy from 18-20ft who was a catch a shoot guy. Tht happens like twice a game now. Ofc the fact that modern guys practice the 3 is a factor too.

Since you were mostly talking about contested shots I thought you were referring more to stars. I agree they could do whatever they want but in general they were throwing away points taking long contested 2s instead of contested 3s

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.[/QUOTE] i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]For the vast majority of stars, there

No hand checking = can

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]i didn't say its the only reason. Theres a few factors like sime of your points. I think again we're basically agreeing we just differ on the amount of threes.

So yes 5 threes a game us way to little. The nba obviously thought this also and started shooting more threes as league threes went from 5 around 15. I think this is point the where we start to differ in opinions. I think the reason why the amount of threes hovered around 15 for a decade is because that was pretty much how many threes that eras defence efficiently allowed for. They probably actually could of taken a few more than that but not many.

You think they could of took more threes and after 05 thats when the nba came to this realization and infact started to because they just became smarter and finally realized this. I dont think it was because they because smarter i think they realized the new rules would allow for more threes.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is that...if true, you expect there to be an explosion of 3's right after the rules changed if they knew the true power of the 3.

And that isn't what you saw...and again, you are counting the 3 years in which they shortened the line...which skews things a bit.

But, what do we see after the rules changed? You see a slight increases... from in line with teams still figuring things out and being late to the realization...just like I've claimed.

And, again...back to the elite player stuff....the fact that elite players weren't taking them in favor of long 2's just shows teams didn't know the power of the 3 yet. You claimed stars could get what they want essentially....why weren't they taking the 3...the better shot...if teams knew?

And, no, again...I don't say that it "started after 05" when they realized. I think it was a slow process from the 80's to present. Again dude...they started increasing the number of 3's from when the line was implemented over time...I'm saying they were late to fully realize just how many should threes they should have been taking.

I'm saying that if teams had all the current knowledge under the rules of the previous eras...80s, 90s, early 00s...that teams would shoot quite a bit more 3's...that is my argument.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I just picked 3 years in which we all agree about the defense...and I didn't use those other years because of the shortened line. I have no agenda to lie about something. If I got something wrong...which happens...it isn't because I'm trying to mislead you.

Again, please stop creating a straw-man to go after.

You said that teams only started taking more 3's because of the rules changes and defense got easier.

This is objectively not true as from the 80's really through 04...defense got better...and 3's continued to increase over time.

Do you disagree?

Again, in case you missed it above...elite players are the driving force of a lot of this. And if Kobe took more 3's instead of long 2's...as you've conceded he could have...then his team would have been harder to guard. This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, the rules will of course impact what type of offense is played. I have said this now about 10 times.

However, taking such a limited number of 3's in favor of long 2's like most teams did in the past...was clearly not optimal offense.[/QUOTE]
Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.

[QUOTE=Micku]I was never talking about stars tho. I even said that stars could do whatever they want. It didn't stop Kobe, T-Mac, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter for taking more 3s. I was talking about the playmaking and the effect of the rules change to stop/make an open shot. Like Steve Nash, driving and kicking to a Joe Johnson or Raja Bell or whatever.

The drive and kick. Some players would stop dead when facing against a big guy in the paint. I was wondering of hand checking, zone or 3 defensive sec had anything to do with the % of an open 3pt. It would be harder to create something off the dribble with the style.

But it's not a significant % enough for me to really say. Not that it really matters. Plus more teams practice that shot. We won't know unless it goes back to those rules and maybe even the pace. Pace would affect the fga, but still you could take % of your shot and just go for the 3. Like 50% of your shots are 3pt attempts.[/QUOTE]

Yea I saw your comment later. Definitely agree there are less drive and kicks but I would argue to explain the % not being significant that there were other ways to get role players open jumpshots. Kick outs on postups, bad rotations, just having someone like Jordan who demanded hard doubles, and open shots in fast breaks which you saw plenty of in the 80s at least

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.[/QUOTE]

They still be taking a bit more than 20. It’s not like handchecking makes it easier to get to the rim. You would be sacrificing contested 3s for contested 2s and thts a drop in efficiency for a large majority of guys. There are a lot more guys than harden who can get 3s off without screens at an ok clip, even a mediocre shooter like lebron. Most teams have at least a guy

Edit: I forgot post ups you see more of those but I feel like current teams would use the post to kick out to shooters. The warriors loved doing that with draymond; draymond trying to score from the post was the last option

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]No, I said that they didn't increase only because of the rules...and pointed out that they were steadily increasing over time before the rules shifted...despite defense actually getting better.

I understand what you are saying about stars, but I think they are a good example of teams being slow on the learning curve. If you agree they could do whatever they want...why weren't teams telling the players I listed to shoot more 3's if they knew the power of 3's?

You really don't think that is evidence that these people took awhile to figure out the true math of the game?[/QUOTE]

I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so i guess the question would be do you think if they got rid of these perimeter defensive rules and defenders could once again hold,hand check, body guys and bust through screens do you think teams could still efficiently shoot as many threes. It sounds like your agreeing that they couldnt so i guess the main question is how many do you think they could?

And we're talking teams. I realize that guys like luka or harden could still be fairly efficient from three even with the old rules but what about everyone else? This is why i said around low 20's. I think guys like harden could still shoot a crap ton but everyone else who needs a screen or more space would struggle more.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to take the time to read if you are going to post. I have already said, a number of times, that of course the rules play a role and of course the league is softer on perimeter players now than it used to be.

Of course they could not do the same efficiency under the rules back in the late 90's or early 00's...I have made that abundantly clear.

I've already answered the other two parts as well. I won't pretend to know what the optimal amount of 3's was in previous eras. However, I will say that it sure as hell wasn't 5 in the 80's...and it sure as hell wasn't around 15 in the 90's or early 00's. Mainly because, again, you are giving those up in favor of long 2's a lot...and that is just dumb.

I think you are confusing how role players generally score. In no era were role players consistently beating their man to score. Doesn't happen today and it didn't happen in the past that often.

[QUOTE=Micku]I'm not debating on the coaches realizing value of the 3 over time. I agree with that. I was arguing that before the rule changes, how open would the role players would be?

Stars get away with it because they are better at creating space to shoot. Role players? Not as much. So when you have a star that could take you off the dribble, drive to the paint and dish out, how open would the other players be if driving was harder? If the defense had more power to dictate where they want you go and better response for the back up if the star player beats them off the dribble? Of course it would depend on the personal.

We could find out which shots are contested nowadays, but I don't think we could back then. But even if we could, I don't think it would matter much in the first place. I thought that the 3pt % was lower than that I thought it was in 98-04. It sort'a is, but not enough to really say. And it doesn't matter since teams practiced that shot more often. And I don't recall if they beg you to shoot the 3 like the 80s. I know they didn't do nearly as much, but it won't matter in this case.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

It is easier now on perimeter players and to answer your question...role players wouldn't be as open as they are now.

However, not taking enough 3's is also easier to defend...so when we evaluate this stuff...we can't only look at one side of it.

The offenses back then made life easier on the defenses by not taking better shots.

Teams settled for way too many long 2's rather than taking 3's...both from stars and role players.

Think about the Bibby/Webber pick and pop...just as an example...they should have been doing that higher and both of them should have been shooting more 3's...

Yes, it was harder back then, but not to the point that it makes taking long 2's better.