Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 291011121314 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 201

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

  1. #166
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer DMAVS41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by warriorfan
    You asked the question, not me.
    I asked it to someone else...and, again, you are so deranged when it comes to Lebron...that you think you answered the question.

    Which you didn't.

    Won't respond again on this topic.

  2. #167

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DMAVS41
    That isn't what he means and of course there is way more to basketball than just shooting a lot of 3's.

    This seems like just trying to argue about something for no reason.
    Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

    I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

    Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.

  3. #168
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer DMAVS41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    Thats what it looks like hes saying. Its pretty simple really. Your saying that teams shoot as many threes as they do now because offences are smarter. Im saying its not necessarily because there smarter its just that there taking advantage of the weak perimeter rules. I actually think its a bit of both as ive already said.

    I know you say u dont watch college ball but if its so much smarter to shoot way more threes why dont the top schools do it? the top schools still shoot around 22 threes a game. Its been within that number give or take for the last 20 plus years. Why hasnt any of these very intelligent coaches thought of putting up 40 plus threes a game?

    Its because the perimeter defensive rules are still alot like the rules were in the nba pre 2004. You cant just come down and put up a bunch of contested threes. For the most part they take the threes that the tough physical perimeter defences give them which is around 22-25 threes a game which is right around what the nba was before the rules changed in 05.
    I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

    What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

    Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

    Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

    Think about that logic for a second.

    You talk about before the rules changed. Back in 04, for example, 23% of the shots in the league came from 16 ft to the 3 point line...while 19% came at the 3 point line. You really don't think offenses could have just chosen to flip those numbers...or gone over 25% from 3? What makes a 21 foot shot so much easier to get than a 24 footer?

    We all know what is was. It was the conventional wisdom that teams that take too many 3's don't win...etc....that was preventing teams from taking those shots. It was the lack of basic math reasoning and analytics.

    Are you really surprised...think of how pathetic the NFL has been on when to go for 2...teams literally just figured out that going for two on the first score while down 14 late in games...is a good thing. This should have been figured out the day the 2 point conversion became an option.
    Last edited by DMAVS41; 12-08-2019 at 12:38 AM.

  4. #169

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DMAVS41
    So then why even pretend to think teams taking the most 3's should win the most?

    Why question how Lebron couldn't come closer than Harden to beating the Warriors when the Rockets had the 6th best defense and the Cavs had the 29th best defense?

    Do you understand my confusion?
    Dude i wasnt pretending. Again it was in response to the other dude who basically said shooting more threes makes a huge difference and that the teams that dont are archaic and dumb. In that scenario which he presented all you would have to do is shoot way more threes and in theory you should win.

    As far as the lebron cavs vs rockets giving the warriors a go i honestly dont remember that Exact convo so i cant say for sure. Im assuming it was an offence related topic about something specific so i was leaving the other factors like defence out of it. Or maybe i was just playing stupid to try to prove a point which i can do from time to time even though for the most part i try to keep it real but i really dont Remember tbh.

  5. #170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DMAVS41
    I can't answer on college because I don't know the game or anything.

    What I can say...is that taking a bunch of long 2's in favor of 3's is stupid. You either disagree or agree with that statement...it is up to you.

    Rules do matter, but not nearly as much as you are claiming...think about what you are arguing.

    Yea, guys could get great looks from 21 feet...but the defense was just so good that they couldn't get good looks from 24 feet.

    Think about that logic for a second.
    Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not. sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right. You think they could of shot way more.

  6. #171
    NBA rookie of the year NBAGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    North Korea
    Posts
    6,967

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    I dont think i was wrong about college ball. There were only 2 teams that shot more than 35 and the top teams didnt come close to that other than Auburn who shot 30. Actually if you look at the elite 8 there the highest. After that its purdue at 27, duke at 23 and it goes down from there. Alot more of the small schools shoot more threes but most of the big schools have shot under 25 a game for the last 20 plus years. That said i agree the extra 8 minutes would allow for more threes.

    And yeah pop would definitely like to shoot less threes but he knows in an era where its really hard to defend the perimeter threes makes sense. Even with that since the rule changes after 04 hes still the most successful coach in the league even though hes never one of the top teams in 3 point attempts.
    i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.


    Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

    I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

    Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

    P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.

  7. #172
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer DMAVS41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    Yeah but i already agreed to that. So the long 2 argument isnt even relevent. Your acting like all the threes now are just replacing long 2's and there not sure a percentage of them are and thats why i agree with it and think threes would be in the 20 somethings if the rules were old school appose to the 13-15 that were shot in the 90's. I think for the most part the early 2000's got it right. You think they could of shot way more.
    Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

    So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?

  8. #173

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NBAGOAT
    i'll reply since you brought up the college ball point again. The question is why would you change if you have great success every year? The thing is it's easy for big schools to still have success without playing more optimally because they have such a recruiting advantage.


    Like ik cal at kentucky is knowing for playing his bigs in the post and a dribble drive style instead of pnr. It might not be completely optimal but it's attractive to young bigs and guards who want to develop and might be one reason kentucky usually has one of the top recruiting classes.

    I'm pretty sure a lot of even mid majors dont have analytics departments either.

    Finally imagine if you told last year's warriors they could only take 20 3's a game, they still easily beat at least bottom tier nba teams because of the talent gap even though taking that few 3's is obviously suboptimal when you have curry, klay, kd.

    P.S some people were even mad at all the contested 2's kd was taking in isolation the last 2 years and I actually agreed with some of that criticism. GS' talent and defense was more than enough to make up for that and win however.
    I dont agree with your college point. Almost All the top schools still shoot in the low 20's. College sports are huge and winning means alot. If all one the coaches had to do was shoot 40 threes instead of 20 to win they woukd of done it by now. Theres some pretty smart coaches in the ncaa but they know with rules how the defensive rules how they are it wont work. That said thy never have shot alot of long 2's they focus mainly on drives post and threes.

    As far as last years warriors go im not arguing that teams now should shoot 20 threes. With the defensive rules the way tbey are in the nba on the perimeter teams should shoot a crap ton of threes. What i was saying was if the rules back to pre 2004 the optimal number of threes would drop to the low 20's like the college game and like the nba was before the rule changes. It could probably be even a little higher than that but it would definitely drop.

  9. #174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DMAVS41
    Long 2's are relevant because that is literally the shot that has been replaced the most.

    So, just to be clear, you think teams should take a higher percentage of long 2's than 3's...correct?
    No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

    You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant and again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.

  10. #175
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer DMAVS41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    No dude i think threes in general they are better than long two's ive already said that. I dont think threes are always better than post play and mid range and i dont think threes are always better than drives which have also been replaced to a degree.

    You keep harping on long two's but the mid range isnt just long two's and its the mid range thats essentially been totally replaced along with post play. other than a few elite players who by coincidence are also the best players in the nba in the last 30 years. The mid range and post play are all but gone. Again in this era with the rules i can understand it more. But if the rules were pre 2005 the mid range and the post would become much more relevant again three attempts would drop some. How much i really dont know but thats seems to be the main disagreement here.
    But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

    04 - 23% to 19%
    03 - 24% to 18%
    02 - 23% to 18%
    01 - 23% to 17%

    This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?

  11. #176

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

    [QUOTE=Showtime80']LOL at these isolated clips!!! Go look at ANY clips from the perimeter manufactured stars after the 2005 defensive highjack and you see a red carpet stroll down the lane when the NBA basically neutered defenses.

    Here's a clip of Steve Nash, a guy who played from 1997 to 2014 and won two MVP's in 2006 and 07 thanks to the rule changes the NBA put in, breaking it down to a basic level and confirming how people like David Stern, Rob Thorn and Jerry Colangelo to name a few altered all the defensive rules starting from the mid 90's (after the panic of the MJ

  12. #177
    NBA rookie of the year Micku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,970

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ainosterhaspie
    Watch the fourth quarter when the Spurs eliminated the Lakers 2003. Where's the physicality that is markedly different from a modern playoff game. I often see more handchecking in the modern game than what you see there, not less. Obviously offense was no where near what it is now in that era, but at the same time when I watch stuff like the clip above it's hard for me to accept the common assertion, that physicality explains the difference in eras.

    Look at Shaq posting up at 3:50. Defender is using forearm on his back. That is almost always a handcheck in today's game. Shaq spins effortless off for an easy basket. At 7:10 Parker with a drive and kick that's a modern bread and butter play.

    At the 12 minute mark you see some tentative hand checking by Bowen on Kobe. Game's over by then. Maybe one of those gets called today, but probably not. I routinely see refs let that stuff go. More likely the offensive player takes a shot when he puts his hand in to try to draw the foul on the arm, but the hand check probably doesn't get called.

    But where are the guys who can't get the ball up the court because they have to turn their back to the basket? It's not happening.

    I realize that the Pistons were a very physical defense, but when the argument is based on a singular team, it isn't much of an argument. The Lakers are three time defending Champs, the Spurs the title team this year and a great defensive team. Handchecking is almost not existent here. If it was the game changer people claim shouldn't there be a lot more of it? Of course it was actually illegal in this era, though perhaps inconsistently enforced, so maybe that's why we don't see tons of it.

    Just one video, and only part of one game at that, but every time I watch old games, the physicality is far less than advertised. Highlight videos dont mean anything. Watch the games. It's really not what people keep telling us it was. They haven't watched these games since then. They remember a handful of anomalous plays and have turned the whole league into those few plays.
    This is more leading to a different conversation. But still relevant since it addresses the defense and to the main topic other than the 3 pt shot.

    Hand checking was still prevalent there. I haven't watched the 03 series in a looooong time. But another series you could also see is 04 spurs vs lakers. I'm sure you seen it before, but there you can find where players do put their forearm on their hip to dictate and slow the ball handler movement. And Tony Parker did proceed to put the pressure on GP a few times to the point where he had to do a spin move or turn his back.

    It happens.

    You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM

    But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

    There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

    Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

    Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

    Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.

  13. #178

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DMAVS41
    But you said the early 00's got it right...and, back then, teams took a higher percentage of shots as long 2's rather than 3's.

    04 - 23% to 19%
    03 - 24% to 18%
    02 - 23% to 18%
    01 - 23% to 17%

    This is what I'm curious about. Why do you think that is optimal? Why was it easier to take a long 2 rather than a 3?
    Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

    I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

    But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.

  14. #179
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer DMAVS41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

    I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

    But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.
    Those are the numbers.

    The first percentage is the percentage of long 2's and the second number is the percentage of 3's.

    Percentage is better to use than attempt numbers because the pace of the game impacts the per game stats...while the rate isn't impacted as much by that.

    Currently, for reference, only 8% of shots are long 2's and 38% are 3's.

    Like I said earlier...I won't pretend to know that optimal ratio...but it absolutely is not more long 2's than 3's...

  15. #180
    NBA rookie of the year Micku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,970

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronbron23
    Again its situational but as i said i dont think it is in general. So how many of these long twos were teams taking then? Find that number and i guess you pretty much find out how many threes teams should of been taking then.

    I think the one thing your not factoring to why teams took more long twos then is the circumstance the more physical defences created. Players on the perimeter weren't getting as open as guys are now so to get a shot off theyd have to make a move and take a dribble or two inside the three point line to create some space so they could get a good look. That was actually better than a contested three or going all the way into a packed paint at times.

    But i agree that this wasnt always or even mostly the case. Sometimes it was just guys taking a bad long 2 when they coukd take a 3. So figure out how much that weighs in on the equation along with how many long 2's teams were taking and i guess you would have your number. My guess is that it would sti be in the 20 somethings though but maybe im wrong.
    On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted on average. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.


    There is another site that tells you the number.
    http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs...r=2007&type=pg

    You can see in 07:
    the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

    While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •