All MJ myths busted (for reference)

[3ball]

.
1) MJ would struggle because today's defenders can play halfway (zone)

Zone isn't allowed in the paint - defenders can't play halfway in the paint, due to the defensive 3 seconds rule.. To remain inside the 16 x 19 foot painted area, defenders must stay "within armslength" of their man (about 3 feet).. "Armslength" is the strictest defense possible outside of having the defender stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his man or something ridiculous like that.

Here's detail on the NBA's policy on paint defense (today's defensive 3 seconds rule compared to previous era's no-spacing and resulting legal paint-camping):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=406



2) Today's defenders can flood from weakside to strongside

The strongside flood is only necessary when there are actual defenders on the weakside to flood over, which doesn't occur without today's weakside spacing.. In today's game, every team places multiple shooters behind the 3-point line on the weakside to draw defenders away from the strongside, thus spacing the entire halfcourt - weakside spacing is a staple of every team's offensive strategy today.

However, the 80's didn't have 3-point shooting to space the floor - weakside spacing didn't exist and defenders didn't need to occupy the weakside - all defenders remained on the strongside and/or in the paint, eliminating the need to flood.

Here's further detail on spacing and weakside spacing:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=408


Here's a comparison of strongside scenarios - with weakside spacing, and without:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=410



3) Previous eras put guys behind the 3-point line to draw defenders out there

This never happened except maybe rare, one-off exceptions.. Understand that there was no spacing in the 80's - that's a fact - so there's no value in bringing up rare exceptions.. Rare exceptions of spacing don't CHANGE the fact that previous eras didn't have spacing, they PROVE it.

There simply isn't a counterargument to the claim that spacing makes today's game easier - obviously, it's not a valid counterargument to say "well, the 80's were spaced too".


Appendix of related counterarguments on this topic:

Here's the problem new fans have when comparing how hard it was to score in different eras - they assume that new defensive schemes in today's game make it harder to score than previous eras, period... This view doesn't consider spacing at all, even though the presence of spacing impacts what defensive schemes are NEEDED to have an effective defense... For example, we know that today's weakside spacing necessitates strongside flooding... (this even sounds as correct and intuitive as it actually is).

(btw, some people argue that the strongside flood came FIRST, and spacing was a response to combat the new flooding technique.. This makes no sense - not only have high volumes of 3-pointers been around for many years, but the strongside flood is only necessary when there are actual defenders on the weakside to flood over, which doesn't occur without weakside spacing)

If new defensive schemes made it harder to score, league-wide ORtg would plummet - but it hasn't - it's remained between 105-108 since the inception of the 3-point line, and it was at 108 as recently as 2011.. I've said it for years - if you put NBA-caliber players on a basketball court, they will play a certain caliber of defense that remains pretty consistent regardless of continuing regulatory changes and playing adjustments on both sides of the ball - this is why we don't see material changes in league-wide ORtg over the years.



4) Today's defensive tactics take away post play

today's post efficiency has gone down

This is a massive misconception by the dumb media - but here's the reality - it's a mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.. This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick worthwhile, we can say with certainty that many of today's elite players would be lesser players back then - their 3-and-D skill sets exclude elite ability in any of the aforementioned areas.

Another way we know that post efficiency hasn't declined is because today's best post players still achieve elite PPP on the post (and they're inferior post players to previous eras).



5) Today's defenders can double team the post before the ball gets there.

Doubling the post before the ball gets there is an extremely obvious move that leaves someone wide open - it prevents a post player from catching it, but that's only a consideration in today's game because the spacing gives players too much time and room to operate once they catch it... The spacing and further distance of help defenders makes today's post players too dangerous when they catch the ball.

Otoh, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Btw, when a post player is doubled without the ball in today's game, it's usually a halfway double, which is the same distance a help defender would be if there was no spacing...


The big picture of post defense with and without spacing:

As you can see, spacing puts defenses in a "pick your poison" situation: allow a post player to catch the ball and have a ton of time/room to operate, or double early to prevent the catch and leave someone wide open?.. Otoh, defenses in previous eras didn't need to double early because the lack of spacing made them better equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Spacing puts defenses in a similar quandry regarding flooding - weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, so defenses must chose: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding, or flood and leave someone open on the weakside?.. Again, defenses in previous eras didn't have to worry about flooding because without weakside spacing, defenders were already on the strongside.


Common counterarguments on this topic:

People will counter by saying that doubling before the ball gets there reduces ACTUAL post scoring - this is meaningless because it doesn't reduce post scoring nearly as much as no-spacing and legal paint-camping... Remember, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's - instead, coaches foolishly positioned players closer to the basket, which activated the league's legal paint-camping provision... Legal paint-camping reduces scoring in the paint more than ANY defensive tactic... It's amazing anyone could advocate for today's paint defense when defensive 3 seconds keeps the paint clear at all times, while previous eras had no spacing, which resulted in legal paint-camping.. It's pretty ridiculous.


.
6) Lebron is better at making bad teams good than MJ


We have clear proof that MJ's 1989 Bulls were more of a 1-man team than Lebron's 2009 and 2010 Cavs:

We've already established that Lebron's supporting cast added enough help on top of his 28/8/7/49 to win 66 games in 2009, while MJ's supporting cast only added enough help to his 33/8/8/54 to win 47 games in 1989.

[COLOR="Navy"]If you think that all 19 of the Cavs' higher win total was due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast)[/COLOR], then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition..

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This of course, must be true.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of higher-producing veterans, a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" he faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast - the superior competition Jordan faced his 1-man show was underscored by the Bulls being a 6-seed, and severe underdog in every series, compared to the Cavs being the #1 seed and favorite to make the Finals.
.

[Uncle Drew]

Didn't read.

[20Four]

[Smoke117]

1-9, had to be carried by Pippen vs the Knicks in 93.

[JohnMax]

http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif

Kyrie-esque

[Spurs m8]

Mate...anyone who knows the game and/or were around in the 90s knows MJ was the best.

Calm down champ

[HighFlyer23]

You have Jordan's feces smeared all over your face, ph@ggot

[SouBeachTalents]

6. Jordan won all of his championships by himself and never had a good teammate or coach

[ShawkFactory]

Didn't even come close to reading.

[SpecialQue]

You're a weird dude. You've devoted your internet life to creating huge paragraphs defending a player who there is near universal agreement on/acclaim for. If anything, your constant hardcore stanning has actually created MJ haters here. So congratulations on failing.

Then again, I suspect you're secretly an MJ-hater and this was your goal all along, so maybe you succeeded?

[Smoke117]

You're a weird dude. You've devoted your internet life to creating huge paragraphs defending a player who there is near universal agreement on/acclaim for. If anything, your constant hardcore stanning has actually created MJ haters here. So congratulations on failing.

Then again, I suspect you're secretly an MJ-hater and this was your goal all along, so maybe you succeeded?

Whether this is true or not really doesn't matter...anybody who puts this much time into something so inconsequential just has massive issues, period.

[DonDadda59]

The Luca Brasi of the Jordan Family. Loyal, Ruthless... Relentless.

[Spurs m8]

I imagine some of these posters deadset having deep NBA issues IRL hahaha

[Da KO King]

This forum has gotten really strange over the last few years.

[3ball]

.
Previous era's paint-camping vs. today's flooding


Paint-camping is a more equitable way to defend the entire court.. If big men could still camp under the rim while out of "armslength" of their man, that would be preferable to today's flooding, which requires the big man to leave the rim unprotected and contest guards outside the paint - extra rotations are necessary since the weakside is left a man down.

But in previous eras, the lack of 3-point shooting kept offensive players closer to the paint, which allowed defenders to paint-camp when their man was in the paint or within 3 feet of either side (see Rule 2b of Illegal Defense Guidelines).. Paint camping is a more equitable way to defend the court, since it doesn't leave the weakside a man down or require extra rotations, while protecting the rim better.

Ultimately, the difficulty of scoring hasn't changed over the eras - you either have extra rotations required by spacing and defensive 3 seconds (today's game), or the rotations aren't necessary because there's no spacing or defensive 3 seconds (previous eras).
.