This is the most aesthetically pleasing 50 point game of all-time

[AlphaWolf24]

LMAO....I killed this shit in a old thread, so again

Stu Jackson: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

You also remember when NBA rules expert Rod Thorn said this after the handchecking rule was changed and the defensive 3 second rule:"It's more difficult now to guard the quick wing player who can handle the ball," Thorn said of the change. "I think it helps skilled players over someone who just has strength or toughness. What the NBA is trying to do is promote unimpeded movement for dribblers or cutters."



Article from 2001: In addition, the typical player nowadays generally dedicates more time to weight training, perhaps to the detriment of additional shooting drills. And never since the NBA added its 3-point line back in 1979-'80 have treys been hoisted more frequently by more pedestrian shooters, driving down shooting accuracy league-wide. Perhaps the best evidence of this is that Boston's Antoine Walker -- a post-up forward to be sure -- has attempted more three-pointers this season (196) than all but two players in the entire league.

Also factoring into the decline in offensive output is the increase in college underclassmen -- many of whom arrive at the "Next Level" ill-prepared with solid basketball foundations. In the five NBA Drafts between 1986 and 1990, 58 underclassmen declared themselves eligible. In the NBA Drafts from 1996 to 2000, the number rose to 153. Perhaps not coincidentally, three of the four-worst league-wide shooting seasons in history occurred in this span.

From a Laker Blog: The NBA will never admit to it publically, but zone defense was primarily legalized to contain Shaquille O'neal. Shaquille simply could not be guarded by one man, it was just not possible. It's a lopsided mismatch regardless of whoever is guarding him. Add Kobe Bryant to that team and it is plain to see that the league would be dominated for a long time to come. Therefor, in order to even out the playing field, the league legalized zone defense.

Yet since 2004 Shaq shot 60+ percent 5 times, 59 2 times, prior to this his high was .599 one time(Zone didn't stop Shaq's efficiency)


[COLOR="Blue"]Zone Myth...as of Dec 22, 2005

Here's a look at the NBA's top five in scoring points in the paint (through Tuesday):

1. Tony Parker, Spurs 328
2. Tim Duncan, Spurs 322
3. Dwyane Wade, Heat 316
4. LeBron James, Cavs 304
5. Allen Iverson, Sixers 298

Source: Elias Sports Bureau[/COLOR]

Zone Defense Makes it harder to get into the mid to close range area for perimeter stars:


In 2010

Kobe scored:

460 pts on layups/dunks
572 pts inside 10 ft
862 pts inside of 15 ft
439 pts from the FT line.

Total: 669 pts outside 15+ ft < 1,301 pts INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line.

That means 66% (2/3 of his pts) came inside of 15 ft & the FT line LOL!!

Carmelo (the alleged pure jump shooter) scored:

652 pts on dunks/layups
736 pts inside 10 ft
864 pts inside 15 ft
508 pts from the FT line
571 pts outside 15 f

Total: 1,372 of his total pts came inside 15 ft or the FT line (71% of his total pts)

D-Wade (who doesn't even have MJ's post game or jumper) scored:

762 pts on dunks/layups
894 pts inside 10 ft
996 pts inside 15 ft
534 pts from the FT line
515 pts from outside 15 ft

Total: 1,530 of his total pts came inside 15 ft or from the FT line (75% of his total pts)


Tyriq Evans (a rookie in 2010) scored 714 pts on layups/dunks (84% of his total pts)

Durant scored 602 pts on layups/dunks (70% of his total pts)

LBJ scored 754 pts on layups/dunks (68% of his total pts)

Brandon Roy scored 346 pts on layups/dunks (63% of his total pts)

Joe Johnson scored 324 pts on layups/dunks (42% of his total pts)

The list of wing players scoring big time pts INSIDE 10-15 ft in tody's game is endless...

Darren Williams scored:

392 pts on layups/dunks
486 pts inside 10 ft
528 inside 15 ft
335 pts from the FT line
556 pts from outside 15 ft

Total: 863 of his total pts came INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line (61% of his total pts)

Dirk Nowitzki (not a great athlete & terrible foot speed) scored:

328 pts on layups/dunks
416 pts inside 10 ft
718 pts inside 15 ft
536 pts from the FT line
773 pts outside 15 ft

Total: 1,254 of his total pts came INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line (62% of his toal pts)

Yet Jordan better at attacking the rim then any of these guys and the zone would cause him to struggle???...These guys have no problems getting into the lane

ok...


Shooting a lower FG% doesn't mean you're an inferior scorer. Guys like Lebron & Wade play close to the basket. Why do you think Tony Parker is one of only 5 players in the last 11 years to score 20+ PPG and shoot 50%? It's because he's in the paint alot.

The main issue for MJ in today's era, is that he would likely take more 3PA. It's actually the fact that he IS a much more diverse scorer, that would likely lower his FG%. His TS% would still be very efficient, but I don't think he would duplicate shooting 50% 6-times in today's era, because the game is played somewhat differently.

What current data shows that it's easier for periemter players to score in the modern era?

FG% was significantly higher in MJ's era. Drtg(points per possession), was 2.1+ in MJ's era.


Like I showed you earlier....20- 25PPG on 50% or higher

This feat was accomplished 56 times in MJ's era, vs 5 times in the modern era. That's pretty striking. I'm fairly certain that today's stars could duplicate the feats of those players if they played in that time.


___________________________________________

LOL @ the 80's

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)

Wade or Parker would be at 70% FG in the 80's style ..lol

This is the list of guards/small forwards who shot over 50% and had 20+ PPG during MJ's era(1985-1998).

Michael Jordan - 6 times
Chris Mullen - 6 times
Adrian Dantley - 4 times
Kiki Vandewedge - 4 times
Reggie Miller - 3 times
James Worthy - 3 times
Alex English - 3 times
Dale Ellis - 3 times
Magic Johnson - 2 times
Penny Hardaway - 2 times
Kevin Johnson - 2 times
Clyde Drexler - 2 times
Cedric Ceballos - 2 times
Mark Aguirre - 2 times
Gary Payton - once
Byron Scott - once
Rolando Blackman - once
Walter Davis - once
Jeff Hornacek - once
Otis Birdsong - once
Jeff Malone - once
George Gervin - once
Drazen Petrovic - once
Reggie Lewis - once
Derek Smith - once
Scottie Pippen - once



And here is the list of guards/small forwards who shot over 50% and had 20+ PPG during the post-Lockout era(2000-2010).

Lebron James - once
Chris Paul - once
Tony Parker - once
Monta Ellis - once
Shawn Marion - once


So in MJ's era it was done 56 times by 26 different players.

In the last 11 years, it has been done only 5 times by 5 different players.





we gonna go off topic and do the whole Kobe vs MJ thing then just rehash the Kobe vs MJ thread.....

copy and paste FTW

[Calabis]

ok...


Shooting a lower FG% doesn't mean you're an inferior scorer. Guys like Lebron & Wade play close to the basket. Why do you think Tony Parker is one of only 5 players in the last 11 years to score 20+ PPG and shoot 50%? It's because he's in the paint alot.

The main issue for MJ in today's era, is that he would likely take more 3PA. It's actually the fact that he IS a much more diverse scorer, that would likely lower his FG%. His TS% would still be very efficient, but I don't think he would duplicate shooting 50% 6-times in today's era, because the game is played somewhat differently.

What current data shows that it's easier for periemter players to score in the modern era?

FG% was significantly higher in MJ's era. Drtg(points per possession), was 2.1+ in MJ's era.


Like I showed you earlier....20- 25PPG on 50% or higher

This feat was accomplished 56 times in MJ's era, vs 5 times in the modern era. That's pretty striking. I'm fairly certain that today's stars could duplicate the feats of those players if they played in that time.


___________________________________________

LOL @ the 80's

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)

Wade or Parker would be at 70% FG in the 80's style ..lol





we gonna go off topic and do the whole Kobe vs MJ thing then just rehash the Kobe vs MJ thread.....

copy and paste FTW

Off topic??? LMAO!!! maybe look who I quoted.....had to crush the zone myth.....

Here are the reasons for the drop, not all this mythical garbage about great defenses from 98-04 and these so called great zones of today

Despite the dip in 3-point percentage, overall scoring is up this season. The league is scoring more than 200 points per game (200.01 to be precise) for the first time since the 1994-95 season. But that's more about pace than offensive efficiency. At 95.2 possessions per team per 48 minutes, this is the fastest pace the league has played at in the last 10 years. Efficiency is actually down from last season as the league is scoring 104.2 points per 100 possessions, down from 105.4 in 2008-09.

Along with the dip in 3-point percentage, the mid-range game continues to fade. The percentage of mid-range points (points not scored at the line, in the paint or beyond the arc) is down to just 20.6 percent. Points in the paint are higher than they've been since the league started tracking them in the 2000-01 season. Those baskets account for 41.7 percent of all points this season, up from 40.1 percent a year ago.(So much for this zone myth of keeping perimeter guys out of the lanes)

Scoring from the mid-range area isn't a trend that good offensive teams have. Chicago scores 26.9 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 27th offensively. Detroit scores 26.6 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 26th offensively. Dallas (25.2 percent, 10th) and Portland (24.9 percent, seventh) go against the grain, thanks to the shooting of Dirk Nowitzki and LaMarcus Aldridge.



http://www.82games.com/scorers.htm

Article from 2004: We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

1984-85 2003-04 Change
Points per game 110.8 93.4 -17.4
Possessions/game 104.8 92.0 -12.8
Points/possession 1.05 1.01 -.04
Field-goal pct. 49.1 43.9 -5.2
Free-throw pct. 76.4 75.2 -1.2
3-point pct. 28.1 34.7 +6.6
Off. Rebound pct. 32.9 28.7 -4.2
FTA/FGA .330 .303 -.207
Turnovers/possession .169 .154 -.015


Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

[AlphaWolf24]

Off topic??? LMAO!!! maybe look who I quoted.....had to crush the zone myth.....

Here are the reasons for the drop, not all this mythical garbage about great defenses from 98-04 and these so called great zones of today

Despite the dip in 3-point percentage, overall scoring is up this season. The league is scoring more than 200 points per game (200.01 to be precise) for the first time since the 1994-95 season. But that's more about pace than offensive efficiency. At 95.2 possessions per team per 48 minutes, this is the fastest pace the league has played at in the last 10 years. Efficiency is actually down from last season as the league is scoring 104.2 points per 100 possessions, down from 105.4 in 2008-09.

Along with the dip in 3-point percentage, the mid-range game continues to fade. The percentage of mid-range points (points not scored at the line, in the paint or beyond the arc) is down to just 20.6 percent. Points in the paint are higher than they've been since the league started tracking them in the 2000-01 season. Those baskets account for 41.7 percent of all points this season, up from 40.1 percent a year ago.(So much for this zone myth of keeping perimeter guys out of the lanes)

Scoring from the mid-range area isn't a trend that good offensive teams have. Chicago scores 26.9 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 27th offensively. Detroit scores 26.6 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 26th offensively. Dallas (25.2 percent, 10th) and Portland (24.9 percent, seventh) go against the grain, thanks to the shooting of Dirk Nowitzki and LaMarcus Aldridge.



http://www.82games.com/scorers.htm

Article from 2004: We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

1984-85 2003-04 Change
Points per game 110.8 93.4 -17.4
Possessions/game 104.8 92.0 -12.8
Points/possession 1.05 1.01 -.04
Field-goal pct. 49.1 43.9 -5.2
Free-throw pct. 76.4 75.2 -1.2
3-point pct. 28.1 34.7 +6.6
Off. Rebound pct. 32.9 28.7 -4.2
FTA/FGA .330 .303 -.207
Turnovers/possession .169 .154 -.015


Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

1) The 60's had a very high pace, yet a low FG%. There is no correlation to pace and FG%.

2) +2.1 Drtg is extremely significant when we're discussing FG% ranges from 45-50%. And the stats from both eras bear this out. The difference between 45% and 50% is 9-20 FG vs 10-20 FG.

3) The 2nd paragraph is referring to the number of times a player avergaed 20+ PPG for a season while shooting 50% or better.

This feat was accomplished 56 times in MJ's era, vs 5 times in the modern era. That's pretty striking. I'm fairly certain that today's stars could duplicate the feats of those players if they played in that time.

[Leviathon1121]

you blame Team USA losing because Fundamentals???....

and we are supposed to take that serious?

Basketball popularity exploded in the 80's....worldwide.

by the time the 2000's rolled around we had a whole generation of international players who grew up playing competitive basketball....

the talent pool is much larger now then it's ever been....





but in the late 80's and early 90's the NBA expanded 6 + teams Right?....but the talent pool was not as great as it is now....


So Bob Pettit , Wilt Chamberlain , Bob Cousy , Sam Jones and Russell would destroy the 2006 Argentina team because of Fundamentals right?


Baseball is America's pastime.....did we lose to Japan because of Fundamental's?...or the fact that the talent pool is so great worldwide and all countries play baseball and produce great players.


Players today are Bigger , stronger and faster...the talent pool is far bigger.....would MJ dominate like he did in the 80's and 90's?....I think so.

would he be even better against bigger , faster and greater players from all over the world?.....No.....Jordan Jockers are basketball illiterates.....make that sports illiterates.

And yet, Kobe got locked down by a 38 year old white point guard.

And then that same 38 year old white point guard, along with a 6 foot white point guard, a German, and a 6-2 shooting guard who can barley dunk just tore through this league. They took out the leagues best front court who have the GOAT Kobe Bryant, then took out the leagues arguably most athletic team in the Heat.

How is this possible? According to you a team like the Mavs, who are probably less athletic the half the teams from the 70's, should not even be in this league, let alone winning titles.

How could this leagues bigger, stronger, and faster players not have stopped these Mavs players?

[Samurai Swoosh]

How could this leagues bigger, stronger, and faster players not have stopped these Mavs players?

Because that is a myth, baked into a lie, wrapped in an enigma, ontop of a riddle, which sits above a conundrum.

[az00m]

Michael jordan shoots mostly jumpers in this game.

Makes the magic look like beetches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mjwyLp6OiM

[az00m]

Wade is a bad example. Not only is Wade taller than Payton (by an inch), but when you factor in wingspan.. it isn't even close.

he isnt taller than payton...

[Samurai Swoosh]

ImmortalD24 going full retard in this thread.

Sigh ... had so much hope for this young buck.

[ImmortalD24]

he isnt taller than payton...

[Samurai Swoosh]

Tell me how wingspan is related to good defense?

GP is a vastly superior on ball defender than Wade.

Which takes more discipline, skill, and is more important than help defense, etc.

And really LMAO @ acting like Wade is a very physical player who would excel in the 90's defensive league rules.

GP was mean and tenacious. Wade is a competitor, but he isn't physical by any stretch.

[ThaSwagg3r]

I find it hilarious how some people think they can use random pics to determine one's height.

[ImmortalD24]

I find it hilarious how some people think they can use random pics to determine one's height.

That Wade/ Kobe pic made no sense.. Kobe is 4 inches taller than Wade now?

Tell me how wingspan is related to good defense?

GP is a vastly superior on ball defender than Wade.

Which takes more discipline, skill, and is more important than help defense, etc.

And really LMAO @ acting like Wade is a very physical player who would excel in the 90's defensive league rules.

GP was mean and tenacious. Wade is a competitor, but he isn't physical by any stretch.

You don't know how Wade's defense would transition to the 90's defense style.. Wade is a solid defender in an era where Jordan fans claim you can't touch anyone. In an era where you laugh at a ref.. you get thrown out of games. If you're going to assume Wade isn't going to adjust.. I'm going to assume the same with Payton.


And height/ length isn't a factor when it comes to defense now? You've got to be kidding me.

[rodman91]

Kobe might be considered better than Jordan..only in LA...not sure about Kobe vs Magic though.

[Dragonyeuw]

Starks is the only 6'2 player you have there.

Starks is listed as 6'5....

[Samurai Swoosh]

Starks is listed as 6'5....

But he's not. He's 6'2, he admitted it himself. Jordan himself is really 6'4 and change. He's slightly taller than Wade.