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

[Smoke117]

That's the problem.

Teams now play exactly the same.

Years back they were obsessed with abusing the post. With Bigs who players just dumped the ball into. Nowadays everything looks positionless. And perimeter-friendly.

When people compare today with the 90s? And oldschool fans claim what they do? That's probably what they're referring to. So OVERALL doesn't really mean much within that context...except to say OVERALL both eras had similar offensive ratings.

Defensively? 1998-2004 reigned supreme though. Without a doubt. The Pacers and Pistons routinely held teams to 80 points a game. Beasts.

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbied for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.

[DMAVS41]

The pace was also much slower, though. The Mavericks were the number one offensive team in 2002 just like they are now. In 2002 they were playing at a pace of 92.8 for 4th in the league. This year they are at 99.9 for 19th in the league. Iso hero ball was much more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't just defenses being better.

No doubt, but I do think it is fair that a combination of everything led to defenses clearly being better back then.

But you are right to also point out that the offense being played then was not optimal either.

Teams weren't taking enough 3's and they were taking way too many long 2's.

[DMAVS41]

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbed for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.

Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.

I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

[/B]

Nobody disputes that though. I haven't seen anyone ever...if I missed it, I apologize, but I've never seen it.

I just think it is also worth a mention that offense back at that time was not being played in an optimal way...whereas now it is far closer to optimal based on the basic math of the game.

Right, but I also think its "worth a mention" to point the part you bolded. ISO hero ball was an extension of the rules from that era.

"3>2"

Yes. That is obvious. But its also harder to make three's @ a respectable clip when defenses are more physical. And when they can put the clamps on you, full-court.

Everything is intertwined. But the main reason you see OPTIMAL offense today is because of the rules. Unless your argument is that it took ~40 years to realize 3 is greater than 2.

[Bronbron23]

Of course I am...and have repeatedly said so. The rules are much easier now for perimeter players post 2004. But, that kind of makes my point actually...

The problem, again, comes back to the ratings being nearly identical...if offense is easier, which we agree, and the current offensive strategy is superior...

Then why are the ratings so similar? Again, I understand there is nuance to all this, but sometimes just zooming out is a really good starting point.

I just don't think you guys realize how easy it was to score back in the 80's and early 90's as well...players/teams were not working nearly as hard on defense as you seem to think they were.

Again, we also all agree that the late 90's and early 00's had the best defense...and what do you know...you see a significant difference in ratings...and the pace at which the game was played as well...and teams were playing closer to optimal offense in terms of shooting 3's during that time as well. Not fully because there were more bad shots being routinely taken likely than now, but clearly better than taking 5 threes a game like I've talked about.

Who cares about the attempts of recent champions when they are all in the same relative ballpark? I'm talking about huge disparities in attempts on the whole.

You make it sound like I'm arguing that shooting more 3's automatically makes you win a title.

well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.

[DMAVS41]

Right, but I also think its "worth a mention" to point the part you bolded. ISO hero ball was an extension of the rules from that era.

"3>2"

Yes. That is obvious. But its also harder to make three's @ a respectable clip when defenses are more physical. And when they can put the clamps on you, full-court.

Everything is intertwined. But the main reason you see OPTIMAL offense today is because of the rules. Unless your argument is that it took ~40 years to realize 3 is greater than 2.

I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here, lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.

Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.

[DMAVS41]

well i dont agree that the current offense is superior. Setting a thoussnd screens a game and coming off them shooting wide open threes or having a open lane for a basket or a pass to an open man because now the rotations are meseed up isnt better offence. Again it just seems that way because of the rules. Mainly because guys cant fight through screens anymore so tbis puts the defence at a huge disadvantage. Pick any game and watch how many screens they set and watch how the other team defends it. They either double the ball or double the screener. Either way someone is open for a wide ooen shot. You couldn't have done this in previous era because in previous eras you were aloud fighting through screens.

As far as the ortg's theyre could be many factors other than bad defence thats the cause of the similarities between some of the eras your talking about. This whole thing started from that bulls knicks 92 or 93 playoff video and all i was saying is you dont see tough physical defence like that anymore. I dared anyone to show me a video like that being played in this era and no one has because they cant because it dosnt happen. Literally everyone would be foulded out by halftime in this era if they did.

Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.

[Ainosterhaspie]

By that point, defensive schemes had peaked since the rules were balanced.

Some argue they favored defenses, another reason why Mark Cuban lobbied for an elimination to hand-checking.

I think a big cause of "ISO hero ball" was because of said rules. Its no coincidence MOST perimeter players saw a jump in points, from 2005 onward.

I disagree with the idea that the rules from 98 to 2004 were balanced. If they were there wouldn't be a anomalously low offensive output. That era stands out from basically the rest of basketball history as the lowest scoring era in basketball. If the rules allow such strong defense that offense is significantly lower than the rest of basketball history it isn't really balanced.

Enforcing the hand-check ban which had been in place since 1980 but frequently not enforced, especially against good defenders who deliberately gamed the system, was necessary to bring balance to the game.

People use the word "hand-check" to describe something that isn't actually hand-checking. Hand-checking is, as the word suggests, simply checking where the player is using your hand, getting a feel for their motion so that you can react more effectively when they move. Pushing and holding a player are not hand-checking, and they have always been something that is meant to be illegal.

The problem is it is very difficult for officials to differentiate between legitimate hand checking and illegitimate holding and pushing because the line between the two is very fuzzy. Savvy defenders have taken advantage of this through the years and pushed the boundaries so the league has had to step in and crack down on it repeatedly. This crackdown didn't just happen in 04, it happened in the early 90s as well as the early eighties.

I would argue that the biggest problem that is leading to so many threes so easily is that screeners are regularly allowed to move, shove men that are trying to track the 3-point shooter, stick their arms and elbows out to make themselves bigger than they should be allowed to, and do various other things that make it impossible for a defender to stick with the three-point shooter. If the league simply cracked down heavily on any sort of moving screen, attempt to shove out a hip, or use of arms and elbows to make the body wider, defenders would do a significantly better job contesting threes.

In essence the problem isn't that defenders are not allowed enough physicality, the problem is that the offense is allowed too much physicality. This is also seen when defenders are called for fouls when it is clear that the offensive player is the one who created the contact. Referees need to stop calling fouls when a player who is driving changes their angle to slam into the defender's body. Most of those situations I think should be no calls.

[Bronbron23]

Nah, it is clearly not optimal to shoot 5 threes per game vs shooting more than 30 threes per game.

That is what I'm talking about...doesn't mean it is perfect or it will win everytime like you've claimed I've said...which I didn't.

But basic math matters.

Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I agree with you probably 90%.

Yes, I really do think it took teams a long time to realize the power of the 3.

It isn't like everything came at the rim...players were taking a lot of long shots back then...so while I definitely agree with you overall here, lets not pretend like players were just incapable of getting 3's off.

Just for fun...I looked up Mike Bibby just now in the 2002 season. He took 47% of his shots between 16 ft and the 3 point line...and only 14% from 3. Yes, part of that was the rules...however, we all watched the game back then...there was nothing inherent in the game preventing him from lowering the long 2's a bit and increasing the threes.

So, yes, could not agree more that it is all connected, but it is also true to say that teams were slow to this.

Hell, just look at 06 to now. Teams took, on average, 16 threes per game. Today they take, on average 34 threes per game.

It isn't just the rules...teams took a long time to understand the math of the game. Can't blame them, I did as well...but it wasn't just the rules. The rules changed completely and it still didn't even increase that much.

Who's arguing that? I'm saying its tougher to make them at a decent clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three, or have a wet jumper? Not much anyone can do 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality? The shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses NOW than I do, but also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah i agree with the 5 threes a game vs 40 or whatever. I just dont think the 40 threes a game would be as effective as it is without the rules being what they are

For sure, we agree on that.

[DMAVS41]

Who's arguing that? I said that its tougher to make them at a respectable clip. When defenses are allowed to put their hands on you. And check you 94 feet.

If you could shoot the three. Or have a wet jumper. Not much anyone can do in a 1v1. Except play you as physically possible. Without the physicality, the shooter naturally has an advantage.

Overall we do agree though. And are probably splitting hairs here. You give more credit to offenses now than I do. But also acknowledge the defensive aspect. Not a big deal.

I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.

You brought up the rules...and I agreed, completely, that is part of it.

I just also think teams were clearly late to realization that 3's matter. They certainly didn't realize it in the 80's...got smarter in the 90's and 00's...and then have realized the power of the 3 and the detriment of the long 2 more and more now.

Currently, 38% of attempts come from 3. Back in 2007...three years after the rules change...21% of attempts came from 3.

My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm questioning your hypothesis that is was so related to the rules change and answering you questioning me about teams being slow to realize the power of the 3.

I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".

My only point was that, yes, of course...teams were really slow on this. Do you not agree?

Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tight and more physically?

I could say yes to your question. But I can't ignore the rules either.

[DMAVS41]

I think threes were tougher to take AND make, but not "impossible". There were a number of good three point shooters in the 90s and early 00s.

So no, its not ALL because of the rule changes. Although I lean more towards that than, say, offenses being more "advanced" and "optimal".



Were teams about 40 years slow or was it simply a tougher shot...because defenses could play shooters tighter and more physically?

I could say yes, but I can't ignore the rules either.

I gave you the example of the mid 00's after the rules change. Again, I'm not even favor of ignoring the rules...I already agree with that.

I'm just trying to show you guys that we've seen roughly a 90% increase in the amount of 3's taken per game in the last 12 years...even after the rules change.

So like I said. Yes, of course teams were slow to realize this. And, it comes as no surprise that a team shooting a lot of 3's back then...the Suns...happened to have the best offense during that stretch as well.