PDA

View Full Version : Defenses in todays NBA are better than defenses from different eras?



kArSoN RyDaH
02-22-2011, 05:41 AM
From 1971 all the up until the 1994 season the NBA League average for PPG for a team was 100+.

From 1995 up until this season there have only been 2 season in which teams have averages 100+ ppg.


So why is it commonly accepted on PSD that teams were better, defensively, compared to teams today?


You tell me...

BkOriginalOne
02-22-2011, 05:45 AM
The defenses have definitely not gotten better.
The game is being called waayy tighter and big names get quicker whistles than they ever did.
Now a days you can't put a forearm on people to defend them like you could in the 80s and 90s. Also, a lot of things that teams did to demoralize players and cramp down on them defensively, today, would get a lot of players techs/ejections.

D1JM
02-22-2011, 05:46 AM
thats weird. i thought it would of been the opposite since of the hand check rule

kArSoN RyDaH
02-22-2011, 05:48 AM
thats weird. i thought it would of been the opposite since of the hand check rule

Yeah. Bruno brought it up in the Laker forum how defenses were "tougher" but not "better".

abe_froman
02-22-2011, 05:57 AM
thats weird. i thought it would of been the opposite since of the hand check rule

the scheming is better but the older era gets the call because it was more physical

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-22-2011, 09:04 AM
someone should give some stats about FG% and possessions per game and then I could make my opinion which defense is better.

BALLER R
02-22-2011, 09:10 AM
your only looking at one stat..and another way at looking at this is that the nba was alot better than we though, because the defenses were so much more physical yet teams still scored 100+ thats says a lot

Niro
02-22-2011, 09:14 AM
look at points per possession.
there you go

game is slower today

Cav Man
02-22-2011, 09:20 AM
Bill Lambier's Elbow disagrees.

Korman12
02-22-2011, 09:31 AM
Yeah. Bruno brought it up in the Laker forum how defenses were "tougher" but not "better".

I think that's the best way of putting it.

TopsyTurvy
02-22-2011, 09:35 AM
Notable rule changes since 1995:


- The three-point line, 22 feet from the basket, lengthened to its original distance of 23 feet, nine inches, except in the corners, where the distance remained 22 feet.

- If two offensive players on the weak side are positioned above the top-of-the-circle extended, one of the two defenders may occupy any area on the weak side, except that he may not enter the inside lane other than to: aggressively double-team the ball, or defend an offensive player(s) who is open because of a double-team on the ball, or as a normal reaction to a “ball fake.” Following a “ball fake,” the defender must immediately return to a legal position or double-team on the ball.

- Any defense is legal on the strong side. Defenders must remain on the weak side outside the paint unless they are double-teaming the ball, picking up a free cutter or closely guarding an offensive player.

- Illegal defense guidelines will be eliminated in their entirety.

- If two officials differ on a block/charge foul involving the restricted area and/or lower defensive box, they will conference and share information in an attempt to make the correct call.

It really didn't take long for teams to adjust and for defensive schemes to significantly alter the way teams plan and play offense.

Doogolas
02-22-2011, 09:40 AM
No, they're not better, there are just different things allowed now that were never allowed before and allow for easier defense.

JordansBulls
02-22-2011, 09:52 AM
From 1971 all the up until the 1994 season the NBA League average for PPG for a team was 100+.

From 1995 up until this season there have only been 2 season in which teams have averages 100+ ppg.


So why is it commonly accepted on PSD that teams were better, defensively, compared to teams today?


You tell me...

Players today don't have as great a shot selection and many can't hit open shots. Not to mention guys take many more threes nowadays. Also teams were much better offensively then.

Albrecht Duerer
02-22-2011, 10:08 AM
From 1971 all the up until the 1994 season the NBA League average for PPG for a team was 100+.

From 1995 up until this season there have only been 2 season in which teams have averages 100+ ppg.


So why is it commonly accepted on PSD that teams were better, defensively, compared to teams today?


You tell me...

Are you 19 years old?

Rentzias
02-22-2011, 10:27 AM
Go play a couple game of pickup basketball with your buddies, play half with handchecking, then play another half without handchecking. Tell me which half was easier to play in.

AIRMAR72
02-22-2011, 10:35 AM
Players today don't have as great a shot selection and many can't hit open shots. Not to mention guys take many more threes nowadays. Also teams were much better offensively then.

and if 3point line was at its orgainal marking i highly dout you would see these guys firing away in todays NBA

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-22-2011, 11:59 AM
Players today don't have as great a shot selection and many can't hit open shots. Not to mention guys take many more threes nowadays. Also teams were much better offensively then.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me

JordansBulls
02-22-2011, 12:02 PM
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me

Well teams were much better offensively in the past so it of course logically would mean tougher to stop them. Also because players have worse shot selection meaning rely too much on the 3, their teams offense struggles.

Rentzias
02-22-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me

From 1978-1979 to 1994-1995, the lowest teams shot in FG% was 46% with multiple 48-49% years. In the next, 15 years, the highest was 46%. 1994-1995 also marked the start of an era where teams averaged double-digit three-point shot attempts, something that never happened in the previous 15.

td0tsfinest
02-22-2011, 12:13 PM
From 1978-1979 to 1994-1995, the lowest teams shot in FG% was 46% with multiple 48-49% years. In the next, 15 years, the highest was 46%. 1994-1995 also marked the start of an era where teams averaged double-digit three-point shot attempts, something that never happened in the previous 15.

But maybe thats due to better defense?

I think what Bruno said was the best way to put it. Defense was definitely much tougher in the other eras but defensive minds have become much better.

Raph12
02-22-2011, 12:18 PM
The physicality has changed and the pace is slower, but the defensive sets have gotten better... It's harder for teams to play as aggressively on defense due to the tight calls, but rotations, help defense, etc has gotten better.

Atticus Finch
02-22-2011, 12:23 PM
Notable rule changes since 1995:



- The three-point line, 22 feet from the basket, lengthened to its original distance of 23 feet, nine inches, except in the corners, where the distance remained 22 feet.

- If two offensive players on the weak side are positioned above the top-of-the-circle extended, one of the two defenders may occupy any area on the weak side, except that he may not enter the inside lane other than to: aggressively double-team the ball, or defend an offensive player(s) who is open because of a double-team on the ball, or as a normal reaction to a ďball fake.Ē Following a ďball fake,Ē the defender must immediately return to a legal position or double-team on the ball.

- Any defense is legal on the strong side. Defenders must remain on the weak side outside the paint unless they are double-teaming the ball, picking up a free cutter or closely guarding an offensive player.

- Illegal defense guidelines will be eliminated in their entirety.

- If two officials differ on a block/charge foul involving the restricted area and/or lower defensive box, they will conference and share information in an attempt to make the correct call.



It really didn't take long for teams to adjust and for defensive schemes to significantly alter the way teams plan and play offense.

The illegal defense rule change in 95 definitely made it easier for teams to double star players and defensively load up the strong side.

_Supreme_
02-22-2011, 12:33 PM
Most players today are softies compared to the 80's and 90's.

If you let the avegare 2011 squad play an average 1990 squad under 1990 rules they wouldn't survive two quarters.

Likewise, the 1990 would probably all foul out in the first half because of all the sissy fouls getting called under today's rules.

Times are just different. I don't think you can really adequately compare different eras.

Rentzias
02-22-2011, 12:43 PM
But maybe thats due to better defense?

I think what Bruno said was the best way to put it. Defense was definitely much tougher in the other eras but defensive minds have become much better.

Definitely possible, but there was never a "live by the three, die by the three" mentality back then either.

The schemes are definitely way more complex and theoretically effective in this era, but you still have to have players execute them. Regardless of the schemes you put in place, you will still have certain situations where players will have to defend players outside of the scheme, and taking away handchecking makes those scenarios laughable for the defender.

The Final Boss
02-22-2011, 01:03 PM
The modern athlete continues to evolve, and with it both offensive and defensive players. I look at it this way ( as a sociology minor), the league was 41% caucasian in the Jordan Era as opposed to 12% in the Kobe era. Hence the fact, Kobe would have demolished the NBA in the '80s and '90s. Please argue that point.

Carey
02-22-2011, 01:17 PM
Points are down because teams have more trouble in the half court then before, also its more bad shooting and bad shots taken now then before. Scoring was up then because team were just way more effecient, what Bird's Celtics teams, or the Lake Show, Run TMC, etc., especially for the first 2, you could watch a whole game and count on one hand how many bad shots were taken, in todays NBA you find that same amount from one team in a qtr.

Atticus Finch
02-22-2011, 01:23 PM
The modern athlete continues to evolve, and with it both offensive and defensive players. I look at it this way ( as a sociology minor), the league was 41% caucasian in the Jordan Era as opposed to 12% in the Kobe era. Hence the fact, Kobe would have demolished the NBA in the '80s and '90s. Please argue that point.

While I agree the league is more athletic today than it ever has been before, it's not because there's less white people in the league.

Rentzias
02-22-2011, 01:52 PM
The modern athlete continues to evolve, and with it both offensive and defensive players. I look at it this way ( as a sociology minor), the league was 41% caucasian in the Jordan Era as opposed to 12% in the Kobe era. Hence the fact, Kobe would have demolished the NBA in the '80s and '90s. Please argue that point.

Tom Chambers, greatest NBA dunk of all time!

I can't, I don't have a starting point regarding the evolution of athleticism in terms of race and racial distribution. It's little bit clearer when you talk about the 50's and 60's with Russell and the Celtics, but I don't even know what matrix I would have to create to mash league racial population, vs. athleticism, vs. expansion, vs. rules, vs. Jordan, vs. Kobe.

sp1derm00
02-22-2011, 03:27 PM
Go play a couple game of pickup basketball with your buddies, play half with handchecking, then play another half without handchecking. Tell me which half was easier to play in.

I laughed out loud after reading this post. I'm seriously unsure whether or not this post was made as a joke or not.

Bruno
02-22-2011, 05:29 PM
I posted this in the Lakers forum. I'm open to all any any information that would support or expose these statistics (seriously, it's a great question and I wana know if there's anything that I'm missing from a statistical view-point).




The 80's and early 90's was a much more physical era in the NBA, it's a commonly accepted truth. But that doesn't directly translate to "better defense", or even support the notion that defenses were more effective/harder to score against during that era.

For example, when Jordan led the Bulls to their first title in 1990-1991 the league averaged a FG% of 47.4%, 106.3 ppg, 27.9 FTA per game on 75.6% FT shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991.html

The San Antonio Spurs were the best defensive team in the league, posting a defensive rating of 103.3 (points allowed per 100 possessions). Defensive rating is a great stat for the sake of this argument. It is already adjusted for pace, allowing us to compare different eras w/o having to adjust all our numbers. The league averaged a defensive rating of 107.9 for the 1990-1991 NBA season.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1991.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991.html


Fast forward to 2007-2008, Kobes first time leading the Lakers to the Finals as the undisputed leader. In 2007-2008 the league averaged a FG% of 45.7%, 99.9 ppg, 24.9 FTA per game on 75.5% FT shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html

The Boston Celtics were the best defensive team in the league, posting a defensive rating of 98.9. The league averaged a defensive rating of 107.5 for the 2007-2008 NBA season.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html

How about 2008-2009, Bryants first year leading the Lakers to the title as the undisputed leader? In 2008-2009 the league averaged a FG% of 45.9%, 100.0 ppg, 24.7 FTA per game on 77% FT shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2009.html

The Orlando Magic were the best defensive team in the league, posting a defensive rating of 101.9. The league averaged a defensive rating of 108.3 for the 2008-2009 NBA season.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2009.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2009.html


When you observe these statistics, it supports the notion that defenses allowed the same amount of points per 100 possessions. This is regardless of era, hand-checking, or zone-defenses. The defenses were almost identical from a statistical view points, w/ almost no change regardless of era (over a 15-20 year period). Not only did teams average almost the same points per 100 possessions, but teams averaged a higher FG% during Jordans early title runs, suggesting it was slightly easier to get a bucket; players shot a higher FG%.

Defenses in the early 90's allowed the same amount of points as defenses from the late 00's when adjusted for pace. There is no statistical argument supporting the notion that Jordan faced more effective defenses during his early title runs than Kobe did during his in the late 2000's/early 2010's, based off league averages from those given regular seasons.

THE NBA FINALS

Bryant has faced tougher defenses in his seven NBA Finals appearances than Jordan did during his six NBA Finals appearances. Surprisingly, it isn't close.

KOBE:
2000- The Pacers. Defensive Rating- 103.6 (13th of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2000.html

2001- The 76ers. Defensive Rating- 98.9 (5th of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html

2002- The Nets. Defensive Rating- 99.5 (1st of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NJN/2002.html

2004- The Pistons. Defensive Rating- 95.4 (2nd of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

2008- The Celtics. Defensive Rating- 98.9 (1st of 30).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html

2009- The Magic. Defensive Rating- 101.9 (1st of 30).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2009.html

2010- The Celtics. Defensive Rating- 103.8 (5th of 30).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2010.html


JORDAN:
1991- The Lakers. Defensive Rating- 105.0 (5th of 27).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1991.html

1992- The Blazers. Defensive Rating- 104.2 (3rd of 27).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/1992.html

1993- The Suns. Defensive Rating- 106.7 (9th of 27).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/1993.html

1996- The Sonics. Defensive Rating- 102.1 (2nd of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1996.html

1997- The Jazz. Defensive Rating- 104.0 (9th of 29).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997.html

1998- The Jazz. Defensive Rating- 105.4 (17th of 29)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1998.html


Over Bryants seven NBA Finals appearances he faced four separate teams who posted a defensive rating of under 100.0 (76ers, Nets, Pistons, '08 Celtics). Jordans Bulls never once faced a team with a defensive rating of under 100.0 in the NBA Finals, in six appearances over an eight year period.

Over Bryants seven NBA Finals appearances he faced six teams who were top five in defensive rating (86% of the time). Three of the seven teams he faced off against in the Finals were the best defensive teams in the NBA on that given years (and one 2nd placed team [NJ]). Over Jordans six NBA Finals appearances he faced off against a top five defensive team only three times (50% of the time).


There are countless reasons as to why Jordan had a superior career than Kobe has had up to this point. Matching up against "superior defenses" isn't one of them.

Compliments to Dean Oliver for developing the defensive rating statistic:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html#def_rtg

Bruno
02-22-2011, 05:31 PM
Points are down because teams have more trouble in the half court then before, also its more bad shooting and bad shots taken now then before. Scoring was up then because team were just way more effecient, what Bird's Celtics teams, or the Lake Show, Run TMC, etc., especially for the first 2, you could watch a whole game and count on one hand how many bad shots were taken, in todays NBA you find that same amount from one team in a qtr.

Pace. Defenses allow nearly that same amount of points per 100 possessions today as they did in 1990-1991.

Chronz
02-22-2011, 05:37 PM
To answer the thread they are basically the same, which is nice because it makes the eras more comparable. Defenders are better and longer/athletic if they had kept the same rules defenses would still be ruling the NBA, luckily HC and 3 in the key have opened up the game enough to offset that difference.




Well teams were much better offensively in the past so it of course logically would mean tougher to stop them. Also because players have worse shot selection meaning rely too much on the 3, their teams offense struggles.

LMFAO teams shooting the 3 is a sign of enhanced efficiency, the shooters nowadays are much better than back in the day. Nowadays if you create an open 3 for someone your efficiency is going to be greater than the midrange shot. Its gone extinct for a reason

JordansBulls
02-22-2011, 05:39 PM
I posted this in the Lakers forum. I'm open to all any any information that would support or expose these statistics (seriously, it's a great question and I wana know if there's anything that I'm missing from a statistical view-point).

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/10071438/Mailbag:-Zones-haven't-made-defenses-stingier




Is it true that, because zone defenses have been legalized, NBA defense is much better today than it was before this legislation? Would Kobe, who faces double- and triple-teams all the time, have scored and played with much more efficiency during the Jordan era because of the absence of zone defenses? — Aaron Ju, South Pasadena, CA




The answer to both of your questions is a resounding "NO."
Kobe would score three to five points per game less in the pre-zone days than he is nowadays. And the legalization of zone defenses has nothing to do with any tightening of NBA defenses.




Here's why:

Especially in the NBA, zones are comparatively easy to combat. An uptempo pace will get the ball into the attack area before zones can set up. Quick ball reversals will inevitably generate open shots — mostly from beyond the 3-point line — simply because a passed ball can cover more ground in a shorter period of time than even the fastest NBA player can run. Also, any team that can eventually get the ball to a player in the high post will easily dissect any kind of zone since open wing players and baseline-cutters are easily seen.

It's interesting to note that zones were first instituted in the 2001-02 season, and the NBA's overall shooting percentage increased from 42.4 the previous season to 44.5 percent. Also, the league's overall point-per-game average was 94.8 in 2000-01 and jumped to 96.5 in the zone's debut season.

In fact, zone defenses regularly aid offenses in that quick ball movement is a must to counter these positional tactics. Nor can poor defenders be hidden by zones. As Red Holzman used to say, "Zone, schmone. Sooner or later somebody's got to play defense."

That's why NBA teams use zones sparingly — mostly just to give their opponents a different look for a few possessions. Only inexperienced teams, particularly inexperienced guards, are routinely rattled when facing NBA zones. That's because NBA zoners are quicker, longer and more athletic than any of the zoners these young players might have gotten used to confronting in college.






I think Rosen's comments are more suited to describing the overall trend than anything else.

But Kobe? Kobe would probably be less effective. Less EFFICIENT, though, not so much fewer points.

I think his FG% would be maybe a point or two lower and he'd average 1 or 2 fewer FTAs (like 7 to 8 per game, on average).

Consider Kobe's performance against the Sixers in the 2001 Finals, which was otherwise arguably his finest postseason. Despite averaging 46.9% FG and over 29 ppg, he shot about 41.5% FG and scored around 24.6 ppg in that series.

Couple of physical wings, a dominant interior defender... There were several teams like that in the NBA in Jordan's hey-day, most notably (for him) Miami and New York.

Would Kobe shoot 41.5%? Hell no, we're talking about a hella nasty defensive team; he'd probably still be a 27 ppg scorer. He might well still shoot 46% FG, but he wouldn't be shooting the FG%s Jordan shot.

There's a caveat, though; what about from 95-97? Kobe's a better 3pt shooter than Jordan, so the pulled-in line would have helped him a LOT. If MJ shot 40.4% from downtown (as he did in those three seasons), you could reasonably expect Kobe to shoot something like 42-45% on his threes.

Still the number of attempts is somewhat illustrative; even in those seasons, with an older MJ and a pulled-in line, he topped out at 3.6 3PA/g. Kobe's got a half-dozen seasons with more attempts than that, which is one of the main reasons Kobe's FG% is that much lower than Jordan's.

In any case, while it's possible that Kobe would be a little less effective, there is definitely overstatement. In the regular season, Kobe would basically be fine; 3PA would lower his FG% compared to MJ's, but in the regular season, it wouldn't be a huge screaming deal. Kobe would probably still be a 27 ppg 45% FG player. I think you wouldn't see the difference until the playoffs.










The Bulls with Jordan (and between comebacks) played at the following paces in the 90s:

1990: 96.7
1991: 95.6
1992: 94.4
1993: 92.5
1994: 91.9
1995: 92.0
1996: 91.1
1997: 90.0
1998: 89.0

The Lakers' pace in 2008 and 2009?

2008: 95.6
2009: 94.3

The slowest pace Kobe's ever endured in his NBA career? 90.8, in 04-05. No Shaq, no hand-checking, no difference in pace between his era and Jordan's, and what do you know? Kobe scored 27.6 ppg on 43.3% FG even with 10.1 FTA/g (Jordan only managed 10+ FTA/g twice in his career, both times in the 80s very early on in his career).




And I'll admit that in the Finals Kobe has faced better defensive teams overall then Jordan did. But what most of you fail to point out is that for the 7 Finals Kobe has been in except for arguably 08, he's had better offensive help around him to take pressure off of him then Jordan did for any of his 6, specifically one of the most dominant players ever for 4. So there really isn't much of an excuse. Another thing people fail to point out is that historically, especially over the past 30 years, the best defensive teams have been in the East, so it makes sense that Kobe faced better defenses in the Finals, but that means Jordan usually faced better defenses in the first 3 rounds.



http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/defense_lazenby.htm


“I think that ‘Jordan Rules’ defense, as much as anything else, played a part in the making of Michael Jordan,” said Tex Winter, who was an assistant coach for that Chicago team. The 1990 loss forced Jordan and the Bulls to find an answer to Detroit’s muscle.

“Those Jordan Rules were murder,” Winter explained. “The fact that we could win the next year even though they were playing that defense says everything about Jordan as a competitor. Any lesser player would have folded his tent.”



The unfortunate footnote to this legacy is that under an interpretation of the rules adopted by the NBA last season, if Dumars were playing today he would not be allowed to guard Jordan so physically, or perhaps even guard him at all.


In a recent interview, Thorn said that the NBA had changed the rule to give an advantage to the offensive player.

“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.”



“The NBA felt there was too much body, too much hand-checking, being used by defenders to the detriment of the game. There was a feeling that there was too much advantage for a defensive player who could merely use his strength to control the offensive player.”


As a result, the new rules interpretation helped promote the emergence last season of a new generation of super stars, from Kobe Bryant scoring his 81 points during a regular season game, to LeBron James, Vince Carter, Gilbert Arenas and Dwyane Wade making big splashes in the playoffs.

“The good wing players – LeBron, Kobe, Arenas, Wade, Carter – shot a lot of free throws with the way the game is now called,” Thorn admitted.



Winter acknowledges the outgrowth of the new rules interpretation is the rise of the super dominant offensive player, led by Wade’s performance in the NBA Finals and Bryant’s string of 40-, 50, even 60-point games during the regular season.

“It’s brought all these 40-point scorers,” Winter said. “They can’t score 40 points unless they get 15-20 free throws.”

And that’s exactly what they were getting on their big nights.

“They should be protected, but not that much,” Winter said of the current generation of talented offensive players. “I don’t think that just touching a player should be a foul."


Winter’s other complaint with the new officiating is that the game now allows the same old physical play in the post while turning the perimeter and wing into a no-touch zone.

I think that article sums it up nicely.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-22-2011, 05:50 PM
I posted this in the Lakers forum. I'm open to all any any information that would support or expose these statistics (seriously, it's a great question and I wana know if there's anything that I'm missing from a statistical view-point).

wow, very informative:clap:

SteveNash
02-22-2011, 05:53 PM
That would be correct if you're only talking about a team running a 2-3 zone and staying that way the entire game. Then it would be broken down easily. The elimination of illegal defense significantly strengthen a teams defense for those that wanted to utilize it.

2004 was the peak, but even with stricter enforcement of hand checking rules that were already in place the great defensive teams of today are vastly superior to the teams of the 90s and earlier.

Atticus Finch
02-22-2011, 06:38 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/10071438/Mailbag:-Zones-haven't-made-defenses-stingier


It's interesting to note that zones were first instituted in the 2001-02 season, and the NBA's overall shooting percentage increased from 42.4 the previous season to 44.5 percent. Also, the league's overall point-per-game average was 94.8 in 2000-01 and jumped to 96.5 in the zone's debut season.

http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/defense_lazenby.htm

I think that article sums it up nicely.

That article would be nice if it wasn't factually incorrect. In 2000-2001 teams averaged 44.3% shooting not 42.4. Also, in 2001-2002 teams average 95.5 points per game, not 96.5. So after the defensive rules were changed teams averaged 1 more point per game and shot .02% better from the field. Just based on that alone it makes the whole article garbage (IMO) since he wrote it using wrong info.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2001.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2002.html



Winter acknowledges the outgrowth of the new rules interpretation is the rise of the super dominant offensive player, led by Wade’s performance in the NBA Finals and Bryant’s string of 40-, 50, even 60-point games during the regular season.

“It’s brought all these 40-point scorers,” Winter said. “They can’t score 40 points unless they get 15-20 free throws.”

And that’s exactly what they were getting on their big nights.

“They should be protected, but not that much,” Winter said of the current generation of talented offensive players. “I don’t think that just touching a player should be a foul."

When Wilt scored 100 in a game he shot 32 free throws. When Kobe scored 81 he shot 20. Furthermore, in 1991 teams averaged 2287 free throws per season and made 1749 of them. Fast forward to 2001 and teams are shooting 2039 free throws per season and making only 1524.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991.html

Chronz
02-22-2011, 06:40 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/10071438/Mailbag:-Zones-haven't-made-defenses-stingier
What a horribly inept piece of writing. The legalization of zone defenses arent just relegated to 2-3, 3-2, 1-3-1, Box-1 schemes, they allow the use of shading without penalty. In other words teams can play man on man AND zone at the same time. Back in the day you usually had to commit to a trap or stay within arms length of your man. The use of these complex zone schemes wasnt realized in the first year, it was a gradual evolution that led to some of the most one sided basketball in recent memory.

Like I said before, the leagues are essentially the same with the extremes coming in the early 2k era, I know you want to hype up MJ but the sooner you realize you dont have to the better off youll be. Even when you account for the league averages MJ is still head and shoulders above anyone, dont worry your hero is safe. But lets not remake history where the likes of the Celtics and Pistons were better defenders because they got to foul more often.

I also LOL'd at his attempt to quantify the players production with ZERO analysis.



http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/defense_lazenby.htm
I love Lazenby but hes better off sticking to covering the games players and not actual analysis. Defenses were getting too good, something had to be done to even out the playing field.

Atticus Finch
02-22-2011, 06:42 PM
To add on more, in 1985 teams averaged:

110.8 PPG (no team in the league averaged under 100)
49.1% FG (7 teams averaged over 50% for the whole year)
1839/2408 FTM/FTA (for the whole season)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1985.html

SteveNash
02-22-2011, 06:44 PM
To add on more, in 1985 teams averaged:

110.8 PPG (no team in the league averaged under 100)
49.1% FG (7 teams averaged over 50% for the whole year)
1839/2408 FTM/FTA (for the whole season)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1985.html

All due to shot selection :rolleyes:

Atticus Finch
02-22-2011, 07:14 PM
What a horribly inept piece of writing. The legalization of zone defenses arent just relegated to 2-3, 3-2, 1-3-1, Box-1 schemes, they allow the use of shading without penalty. In other words teams can play man on man AND zone at the same time. Back in the day you usually had to commit to a trap or stay within arms length of your man. The use of these complex zone schemes wasnt realized in the first year, it was a gradual evolution that led to some of the most one sided basketball in recent memory.

Like I said before, the leagues are essentially the same with the extremes coming in the early 2k era, I know you want to hype up MJ but the sooner you realize you dont have to the better off youll be. Even when you account for the league averages MJ is still head and shoulders above anyone, dont worry your hero is safe. But lets not remake history where the likes of the Celtics and Pistons were better defenders because they got to foul more often.

I also LOL'd at his attempt to quantify the players production with ZERO analysis.



I love Lazenby but hes better off sticking to covering the games players and not actual analysis. Defenses were getting too good, something had to be done to even out the playing field.

I swear you're the first person I've seen even mention this. This alone made double and triple teaming extremely difficult. The second the offensive player senses the trap is coming all he has to do is pass the ball to the open teammate. The defensive under those rules wasn't allowed to turn around and go back to his original man until he was basically able to touch the defender he intended on double teaming. Once the ball was passed out of the potential trap all they had to do was swing the ball and the defense would never recover.

Klivlend
02-22-2011, 07:21 PM
The modern athlete continues to evolve, and with it both offensive and defensive players. I look at it this way ( as a sociology minor), the league was 41% caucasian in the Jordan Era as opposed to 12% in the Kobe era. Hence the fact, Kobe would have demolished the NBA in the '80s and '90s. Please argue that point.

You would have to make a point before it can be argued. Your post is full of ignorance, poop and assumptions.

sp1derm00
02-22-2011, 08:32 PM
I think that article sums it up nicely.

I agree that Jordan is the more effective and efficient player. In short, Jordan is better. What I don't understand is how you think Kobe would do worse.

Asking any defender to go single coverage for the most part against Kobe is asking to be scored on. Also, the typical defender that does well in containing Kobe is built like Durant or Tayshaun Prince, long, lanky, and athletic. Kobe would hhold a clinic with the defenders in Jordan's era.

As for 40 point scorers in today's game needing FT's... on his 81 point game night, Kobe scored 63 points not at the charity stripe. Can't say as much about the other perimeter players in the league right now, but Kobe can flat out score.

ClayMatthews
02-22-2011, 08:47 PM
Players are all around more athletic/better

ClayMatthews
02-22-2011, 08:47 PM
With that said the games played different.

Bruno
02-22-2011, 09:27 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/10071438/Mailbag:-Zones-haven't-made-defenses-stingier

And I'll admit that in the Finals Kobe has faced better defensive teams overall then Jordan did. But what most of you fail to point out is that for the 7 Finals Kobe has been in except for arguably 08, he's had better offensive help around him to take pressure off of him then Jordan did for any of his 6, specifically one of the most dominant players ever for 4. So there really isn't much of an excuse. Another thing people fail to point out is that historically, especially over the past 30 years, the best defensive teams have been in the East, so it makes sense that Kobe faced better defenses in the Finals, but that means Jordan usually faced better defenses in the first 3 rounds.
JB, I fail to mention that because that's not my argument. The entire purpose of my post was to observe the statistical output of the defenses both faced. I'm simply observing the quality/effectiveness of the defenses they faced during their given era, not how well they performed against them. I know Jordan topped Kobes performances by wide margins, but that's not what I'm addressing.

I also question the last part of your post, based off the below information. Over 30 years, you're probably right, I'm not gona do the work to double-check you; I'll take your word for it. But my post never aimed to address defenses over a 30 year period, it aimed to adress defenses during "the Jordan championship years" and defenses from the "post Jordan-Bulls era". (roughly 20 years). The below information suggests that the bulk of top 5 defensive teams came from the West during Jordans era, from '91-'98 (5/8, and thats even including '95, when Jordan missed the bulk of the season, so really 5/7); the below information also suggests that the bulk of the top 5 defensive teams came from the East during Bryants era (The east had more representatives in the top 5, for 7 out of 11 seasons from '00-'10). The notion that Jordans Bulls had to play more top defensive teams on their way to the title is false. See below.

Top 5 Defensive Ratings (91-98): RED: West, BLUE: East.

'90-'91:
1. Spurs (103.3).
2. Rockets (103.9).
3. Trail-Blazers (104.3)
4. Pistons (104.6)
5. Lakers (105.0)

The Bulls had to go through two top five defensive teams, the Pistons and the Lakers on their way to the title (2/4).

'90-'91 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 107.9
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991.html


'91-'92:
1. Spurs (104.1)
2. Trail-Blazers (104.2)
3. Knicks (104.2)
4. Bulls (104.5)
5. Clippers (104.7)

The Bulls had to go through both NY and Portland on their way to the title (2/4).

'91-'92 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 108.2
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1992.html


'92-'93:
1. Knicks (99.7)
2. Super-Sonics (104.9)
3. Rockets (105.2)
4. Trail-Blazers (105.2)
5. Nets (105.2)

The Bulls had to go through 1 top five defensive team (NYK) on their way to the title (1/4)

'92-'93 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 108.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1993.html

'93-'94: MJ's first year of retirement
1. Knicks (98.2)
2. Rockets (101.4)
3. Super-Sonics (101.5)
4. Hawks (101.7)
5. Nuggets (102.3).

'93-'94 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 106.3 (could it be that the entire leagues average defensive rating improved by nearly two full points, simply because Jordan wasn't there to rip those defenses apart anymore?) :laugh2: :laugh2:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994.html

'94-'95: MJ's second year of retirement
1. Knicks (103.8)
2. Bulls (104.3) w/out MJ.
3. Cavs (104.6)
4. Hawks (105.2)
5. Spurs (105.4)

'94-'95 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 108.3
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1995.html

'95-'96:
1. Bulls (101.8)
2. Super-Sonics (102.1). The only time JBs faced the best D in the finals.
3. Spurs (103.5)
4. Knicks (103.5)
5. Blazers (103.5)

The Bulls had to go through two top 5 defensive teams on the way to the title, the Sonics and Knicks (2/4).

'95-'96 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 107.6
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1996.html

'96-'97:
1. Heat (100.6)
2. Knicks (101.1)
3. Hawks (102.3)
4. Bulls (102.4)
5. Cavs (102.4)

The Bulls had to go through two top 5 defensive (Hawks, Heat) teams on the way to the title (2/4)

'96-'97 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 106.7
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1997.html

'97-'98
1. Cavs (99.1)
2. Spurs (99.4)
3. Bulls (99.8)
4. Knicks (100.2)
5. Pacers (101.6)

The Bulls had to go through one top five defensive team (Pacers) on their way to the title (1/4)

'97-'98 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 105.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1998.html


Jordan-Era Overview ('91-'98):

The West had more representatives in the top 5 defensive rating for 5 of the 8 years. The league average defensive rating from '91-'98 was 105.4.

Opponents w/ top 5 D who the Bulls beat in the playoffs when the Bulls made it to at least the NBA Finals:
91: 2/4
92: 2/4
93: 1/4
96: 2/4
97: 2/4
98: 1/4

Top 5 Defensive Rating ('00-'10). RED: West, BLUE: East.

'99-'00:
1. Lakers (98.2)
2. Spurs (98.6)
3. Suns (99.0)
4. 76ers (100.0)
5. Trail-Blazers (100.8)

The Lakers beat the Suns and Trail-Blazers on their way to the title (2/4)

'99-'00 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 104.1
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2000.html

'00-'01:
1. Spurs (98.0)
2. Suns (98.0)
3. Knicks (98.2)
4. Heat (98.5)
5. 76ers (98.9)

The Lakrs beat the Spurs and 76ers on their way to the title (2/4)

'00-'01 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 103.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2001.html

01-'02:
1. Nets (99.5)
2. Spurs (99.7)
3. Heat (100.2)
4. 76ers (100.3)
5. Celtics (101.0).

The Lakers beat the Nets and Spurs on their way to the title (2/4).

'01-'02 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 104.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2002.html


'02-'03:
1. Nets (98.1)
2. Kings (99.1)
3. Spurs (99.7)
4. Pistons (99.9)
5. Pacers (100.8)

'02-'03 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 103.6
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2003.html


'03-'04:
1. Spurs (94.1)
2. Pistons (95.4)
3. Pacers (97.2)
4. Nets (98.0)
5. Rockets (99.0)

The Lakers had to play the Rockets, Spurs and Pistons through the NBA Finals (3/4).

'03-04 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 102.9
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2004.html


'04-'05:
1. Spurs (98.8)
2. Bulls (100.3)
3. Pistons (101.2)
4. Rockets (101.7)
5. Grizzlies (102.9)

'04-'05 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 106.1
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2005.html


'05-'06:
1. Spurs (99.6)
2. Grizzlies (101.6)
3. Pacers (102.4)
4. Nets (102.4)
5. Pistons (103.1)

'05-'06 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 106.2
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2006.html


'06-'07:
1. Bulls (99.6)
2. Spurs (99.9)
3. Rockets (100.7)
4. Cavs (101.2)
5. Mavs (103.2)

'06-'07 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 106.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2007.html

'07-'08:
1. Celtics (98.9)
2. Rockets (101.6)
3. Spurs (101.8)
4. Pistons (102.9)
5. Lakers (105.5)

The Lakers had to play the Spurs and Celtics on through the NBA Finals (2/4).

'07-'08 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 107.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html


'08-'09:
1. Magic (101.9)
2. Celtics (102.3)
3. Cavs (102.4)
4. Rockets (104.0)
5. Spurs (104.3)

The Lakers had to beat the Magic and the Rockets on their way to the title (2/4)

'08-'09 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING:108.3
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2009.html


'09-'10:
1. Bobcats (102.8)
2. Bucks (103.1)
3. Magic (103.3)
4. Lakers (103.7)
5. Celtics (103.8)

The Lakers only had to play the Celtics on their way to the title (1/4)

'09-'10 LEAGUE AVERAGE DEFENSIVE RATING: 107.6
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html


Bryant-Era Overview ('00-'10)

During this eleven year period, the EC had more representatives in the Top 5 defensive rating (7/11 times the east had more representatives). However, the average Defensive Rating from '00-'10 was 105.4

Opponents w/ top 5 D who the Lakers played in the playoffs when the Lakers made it to at least the NBA Finals:
00- 2/4
01- 2/4
02- 2/4
04- 3/4
08- 2/4
09- 2/4
10- 1/4


Cumulative Overview

Average Defensive Rating ('91-'98): 107.25
Average Defensive Rating ('00-'10): 105.4
It also seems that the notion that Jordans Bulls had to play more top 5 defensive teams on their way to the title, through four rounds of NBA playoffs is also false, based on the above information.


Article:


The answer to both of your questions is a resounding "NO."
Kobe would score three to five points per game less in the pre-zone days than he is nowadays. And the legalization of zone defenses has nothing to do with any tightening of NBA defenses.


This is a bad article JB. There are so many holes in this guys argument, and a lot of his "facts" or not even facts. For example, referring to Kobes 2001 playoff run as his most successfully is BS. His best was 2009, he had a superior, PER, TS% and WS. None of the points, or failed points he makes address my previous post, or this post. I'll get into exactly why (IMO) that article doesn't accomplish what it's trying to do later, I'm spent.

Your statistical analysis of Jordans career accomplishments/stats in the classic NBA forum and the comparisons forum is why I accepted that nobody touches MJ.

But I don't think I'm reaching on this one, and I think I'm making a lot of fair points regarding the defenses they both faced during their given era, and how those best defenses posted superior numbers during Bryants era (both on average league wide, and in the finals).

Bruno
02-22-2011, 09:40 PM
And to answer the question of the OP. Defenses today allow essentially the same amount of points per 100 possessions as they did during the early 90's. As Chronz addressed, there was a spike during the early 2000's (post Jordan) where the leagues best defensive teams were head and shoulders above any other period over the past twenty years (specifically 00-04).

All in all, more physical defense doesn't equate to more effective or "harder to score against defense", according to the stats.

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Points per game are not good to use because of the pace factor. Defensive rating is not a good individual defensive indicator, but it is useful when comparing teams, or leagues. Also, because of the three point shot, EFG% is better than using pure shooting%

As you can see below, the defensive rating and Efg% have been far lower in the past 15 years. Defenses are not just about mauling guys anymore. They are more about not letting the opposing team put the ball in the basket. Which is the name of the game right? So yes, defenses have been better this decade do to advanced scouting, most athletic players of any era (which is about 80% of what a defensive player relies on), what would have been considered illegal defense before is now one of the best defensive weapons a good defensive coach will through at you, and greater scheming


Year.. D Rating efg%

79-80- 105.3...48.6%
80-81- 105.5...48.9%
81-82- 106.9...49.5%
82-83- 104.7...48.8%
83-84- 107.6...49.5%
84-85- 107.9...49.6%
85-86- 107.2...49.3%
86-87- 108.3...48.8%
87-88- 108.0...48.9%
88-89- 107.8...48.9%
89-90- 108.1...48.9%
90-91- 107.7...48.7%
91-92- 108.2...48.7%
92-93- 108.0...49.1%
94-95- 108.3...50.0%
95-96- 107.6...49.9%
96-97- 106.7...49.3%
97-98- 105.0...47.8%
98-99- 102.2...46.6%
99-00- 104.1...47.8%
00-01- 103.0...47.3%
01-02- 104.5...47.7%
02-03- 103.6...47.4%
03-04- 102.9...47.1%
04-05- 106.1...48.2%
05-06- 106.2...49.0%
06-07- 106.5...49.6%
07-08- 107.5...49.7%
08-09- 108.3...50.0%
09-10- 107.6...50.1%

If you take a look at the bolded, you can see one of the greatest defensive era's in league history. The no hand checking rule has at least brought it back to where defense was in the 80's and 90's. But for about 8 years, the defense was amazing.

mrblisterdundee
02-22-2011, 10:10 PM
I wouldn't say that. Today's NBA is softer than the former eras. Tough defense should also mean that referees don't call every little bump. You've all seen what gigantic ******* NBA players are these days.

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:10 PM
And to answer the question of the OP. Defenses today allow essentially the same amount of points per 100 possessions as they did during the early 90's. As Chronz addressed, there was a spike during the early 2000's (post Jordan) where the leagues best defensive teams were head and shoulders above any other period over the past twenty years (specifically 00-04).

All in all, more physical defense doesn't equate to more effective or "harder to score against defense", according to the stats.

I should have read your post before doing all that work! You said exactly what I wanted to say in one tiny little paragraph. :(

Chronz
02-22-2011, 10:15 PM
I should have read your post before doing all that work! You said exactly what I wanted to say in one tiny little paragraph. :(

Dont sell him short, look at the behemoth of a post beforehand

kArSoN RyDaH
02-22-2011, 10:16 PM
Why do people say now they favor offensive scorers when players during Magic and MJ's eras shot more FTs then players do now-a-days?


At one point teams were shooting 30 FTs a game. It hasn't been the same since.


So I think that argument is a little far fetched...

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:17 PM
What a horribly inept piece of writing. The legalization of zone defenses arent just relegated to 2-3, 3-2, 1-3-1, Box-1 schemes, they allow the use of shading without penalty. In other words teams can play man on man AND zone at the same time. Back in the day you usually had to commit to a trap or stay within arms length of your man. The use of these complex zone schemes wasnt realized in the first year, it was a gradual evolution that led to some of the most one sided basketball in recent memory.
Like I said before, the leagues are essentially the same with the extremes coming in the early 2k era, I know you want to hype up MJ but the sooner you realize you dont have to the better off youll be. Even when you account for the league averages MJ is still head and shoulders above anyone, dont worry your hero is safe. But lets not remake history where the likes of the Celtics and Pistons were better defenders because they got to foul more often.

I also LOL'd at his attempt to quantify the players production with ZERO analysis.



I love Lazenby but hes better off sticking to covering the games players and not actual analysis. Defenses were getting too good, something had to be done to even out the playing field.

I should have read your post as well. This is what I meant when I said what would have been considered illegal defense before, is now a great weapon for a good defensive team. (I have the Celtics in mind when I type this)

Avenged
02-22-2011, 10:22 PM
Bruno putting work :clap:

By far the best Lakers poster. ;)

WizFan3
02-22-2011, 10:25 PM
this whole fn league is fd up now wish we could go back to 80s man

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:28 PM
Dont sell him short, look at the behemoth of a post beforehand

I did sell him short. I just saw the first post and replied to the OP. I just went back and saw his post. Bruno is a beast. Iím glad he is a Lakers fan. We have too many Kobe>>>>>> everyone fans but donít have the intellect or intelligence to back up any of their claims. Great job Bruno :clap:

mlisica19
02-22-2011, 10:29 PM
Teams are allowed to prepare better with the advancement in media and technology. Did any one mention the fact that the league has been declining in its toughness. Refs are told to call a whole lot more calls, allowing for more foul shots which also means that defenses are not going to go as hard when players drive in in fear they will be called.

So back players know have a much easier time on the court then back in the day.

Offenses were a whole lot better back in the day as well. the 80s and 90s had superstars like no tomorow. Each team had at least one legend.

mlisica19
02-22-2011, 10:29 PM
Back in the day you would not see the light of day for most guys holding the ball.

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:30 PM
Bruno putting work :clap:

By far the best Lakers poster. ;)

I agree. I guess I'll take second. Silver is nice :D

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:32 PM
Teams are allowed to prepare better with the advancement in media and technology. Did any one mention the fact that the league has been declining in its toughness. Refs are told to call a whole lot more calls, allowing for more foul shots which also means that defenses are not going to go as hard when players drive in in fear they will be called.

So back players know have a much easier time on the court then back in the day.

Offenses were a whole lot better back in the day as well. the 80s and 90s had superstars like no tomorow. Each team had at least one legend.

Really? Please provide these so called Legends each team had. I would love to see this.

Avenged
02-22-2011, 10:35 PM
I agree. I guess I'll take second. Silver is nice :D

You should make your way into the Lakers Forum, don't see much of you in there.

kArSoN RyDaH
02-22-2011, 10:35 PM
A team consisting of players from Kobe's era vs Jordan's era who would win?


Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Ray Allen
Nash
Kidd
TMac

vs

whoever is on MJs team. lol. ;)

Chronz
02-22-2011, 10:41 PM
Bruno putting work :clap:

By far the best Lakers poster. ;)

Called it months ago

DODGERS&LAKERS
02-22-2011, 10:41 PM
You should make your way into the Lakers Forum, don't see much of you in there.

But over there, everyone agrees with me. I like to be combative . :) If I went over there, it would just be a bobbin on the Lakers knob fest. Just playing. Yeah, I got to go over there more often.

kArSoN RyDaH
02-22-2011, 10:46 PM
Bruno is tha HOMMMIEEE! lol.

NYKalltheway
02-22-2011, 11:23 PM
That still doesn't make the mid2000s(till now) less soft than the 90s...

Plus Kobe's first 3 had Shaq's signature as well ;) (if that's an argument) and they faced the east when the East was declining. Bulls were playing against a very tough West back then and an even tougher East conference.

It's a no contest that defenses back in the say were much tougher than today. Today you're not even allowed to touch anyone ffs, why do you waste time trying to prove the unprovable??

Bruno
02-22-2011, 11:30 PM
What a horribly inept piece of writing. The legalization of zone defenses arent just relegated to 2-3, 3-2, 1-3-1, Box-1 schemes, they allow the use of shading without penalty. In other words teams can play man on man AND zone at the same time. Back in the day you usually had to commit to a trap or stay within arms length of your man. The use of these complex zone schemes wasnt realized in the first year, it was a gradual evolution that led to some of the most one sided basketball in recent memory.

Like I said before, the leagues are essentially the same with the extremes coming in the early 2k era, I know you want to hype up MJ but the sooner you realize you dont have to the better off youll be. Even when you account for the league averages MJ is still head and shoulders above anyone, dont worry your hero is safe. But lets not remake history where the likes of the Celtics and Pistons were better defenders because they got to foul more often.

I also LOL'd at his attempt to quantify the players production with ZERO analysis.

I love Lazenby but hes better off sticking to covering the games players and not actual analysis. Defenses were getting too good, something had to be done to even out the playing field.

Damn Chronz, I didn't even notice that you posted this, but I'm real glad that you did. This has been one of my great questions regarding defensive schemes ever since the 2008 Finals. I would always say to myself something a long the lines of "It's almost as if Boston seamlessly transitions between man and rover-zones in the same possessions. How is that legal?!". I would second guess myself and not mention it on the forum, out of thinking I might be wrong/might get flamed for saying some ignorant ****. I felt like Detriot did this w/ great effectiveness in 2004 as well?

I felt like my suspicion was inaccurate because afterall... isn't that what "illegal defense" is for. I mean, I see teams get called for it all the time "guarding an area, while not in arms reach of a player, when the rest of the team isn't playing ZONE", but after reading your post it makes more sense. It's just surprising that such a brilliant defensive scheme gets little notice or attention on the forum.


Points per game are not good to use because of the pace factor. Defensive rating is not a good individual defensive indicator, but it is useful when comparing teams, or leagues. Also, because of the three point shot, EFG% is better than using pure shooting%

As you can see below, the defensive rating and Efg% have been far lower in the past 15 years. Defenses are not just about mauling guys anymore. They are more about not letting the opposing team put the ball in the basket. Which is the name of the game right? So yes, defenses have been better this decade do to advanced scouting, most athletic players of any era (which is about 80% of what a defensive player relies on), what would have been considered illegal defense before is now one of the best defensive weapons a good defensive coach will through at you, and greater scheming


Year.. D Rating efg%

79-80- 105.3...48.6%
80-81- 105.5...48.9%
81-82- 106.9...49.5%
82-83- 104.7...48.8%
83-84- 107.6...49.5%
84-85- 107.9...49.6%
85-86- 107.2...49.3%
86-87- 108.3...48.8%
87-88- 108.0...48.9%
88-89- 107.8...48.9%
89-90- 108.1...48.9%
90-91- 107.7...48.7%
91-92- 108.2...48.7%
92-93- 108.0...49.1%
94-95- 108.3...50.0%
95-96- 107.6...49.9%
96-97- 106.7...49.3%
97-98- 105.0...47.8%
98-99- 102.2...46.6%
99-00- 104.1...47.8%
00-01- 103.0...47.3%
01-02- 104.5...47.7%
02-03- 103.6...47.4%
03-04- 102.9...47.1%
04-05- 106.1...48.2%
05-06- 106.2...49.0%
06-07- 106.5...49.6%
07-08- 107.5...49.7%
08-09- 108.3...50.0%
09-10- 107.6...50.1%

If you take a look at the bolded, you can see one of the greatest defensive era's in league history. The no hand checking rule has at least brought it back to where defense was in the 80's and 90's. But for about 8 years, the defense was amazing.


I should have read your post before doing all that work! You said exactly what I wanted to say in one tiny little paragraph. :(

haha, but I'm glad you did D&L, it's nice being able to see those figures written out clearly w/out having to hustle between pages and pages of archives on the internet.


I should have read your post as well. This is what I meant when I said what would have been considered illegal defense before, is now a great weapon for a good defensive team. (I have the Celtics in mind when I type this)

Agreed, exactly what I was wondering/thinking/questioning.


Bruno putting work :clap:

By far the best Lakers poster. ;)

haha, common Avenged, only because I don't have to spend countless hours keeping the teens on the forum in line. :cheers:


I did sell him short. I just saw the first post and replied to the OP. I just went back and saw his post. Bruno is a beast. Iím glad he is a Lakers fan. We have too many Kobe>>>>>> everyone fans but donít have the intellect or intelligence to back up any of their claims. Great job Bruno :clap:


You should make your way into the Lakers Forum, don't see much of you in there.

Agreed, we need more level headed Laker fans in the forum D&L.


Called it months ago

Thanks for the heads up Chronz, I've always valued your analysis and have tried to be more moderate since getting called out by you years back (doubt you even remember that). You've been one of the best posters on the forum for years.


Bruno is tha HOMMMIEEE! lol.

Thanks for starting the thread Karson, there's a lot of good info in here (lotta jelly in these donuts).
:cheers:

Bruno
02-22-2011, 11:32 PM
That still doesn't make the mid2000s(till now) less soft than the 90s...


Nobody said it did.

Tough/physical D doesn't equate to harder to score against/more effective D.

sevencastro
02-23-2011, 12:19 AM
stats can tell you a lot of things but they cant show you the way the game was played back then if you really want to compare just go watch the bulls vs detroit series knicks vs pacers or knicks vs bulls series then compare them to todays game and you will get your answer

sevencastro
02-23-2011, 12:24 AM
A team consisting of players from Kobe's era vs Jordan's era who would win?


Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Ray Allen
Nash
Kidd
TMac

vs

whoever is on MJs team. lol. ;)

dood what the hell are you talkin bout the 90s wld kill them


david robinson
hakem olajuwon
karl malone
john stockton
scottie pippen
charles barkley
grant hill
reggie miller
patrick ewing
alonzo morning
i cld go on but im just tired

NYKalltheway
02-23-2011, 01:35 AM
Nobody said it did.

Tough/physical D doesn't equate to harder to score against/more effective D.

I get your point but I find it invalid. If you've played basketball you'd understand that it's much harder with hands all over you than without. When you let NBA calibre players shoot without much pressure, well, they tend to score. And driving through the paint with 4 bodies and nowhere to go is slightly harder than driving the lane with just 1 guy trying to lock you down isn't it? You could argue that it's a harder task for the defending player but in the same way I can argue that the level of talent has fallen. ;)

Bruno
02-23-2011, 03:04 AM
I get your point but I find it invalid. If you've played basketball you'd understand that it's much harder with hands all over you than without. When you let NBA calibre players shoot without much pressure, well, they tend to score. And driving through the paint with 4 bodies and nowhere to go is slightly harder than driving the lane with just 1 guy trying to lock you down isn't it? You could argue that it's a harder task for the defending player but in the same way I can argue that the level of talent has fallen. ;)

Lets see the statistical argument for that.

It's okay with me if you find it invalid (i can't convince everybody). The stats support my argument, I have all the evidence I need to support my opinion. Speculation/opinion that isn't supported by any evidence just doesn't hold as strong of a case.

Draco
02-23-2011, 03:16 AM
Lets see the statistical argument for that.

It's okay with me if you find it invalid (i can't convince everybody). The stats support my argument, I have all the evidence I need to support my opinion. Speculation/opinion that isn't supported by any evidence just doesn't hold as strong of a case.

No doubt you'll win a lot brownie points with stat nerds who like to watch basketball but the opinions of people who play the game mean as much if not more to me to numbers.

kArSoN RyDaH
02-23-2011, 03:23 AM
No doubt you'll win a lot brownie points with stat nerds who like to watch basketball but the opinions of people who play the game mean as much if not more to me to numbers.

The opinions of which players that play the game? NBA? Then yeah okay I'll accept it. But even then when judging defenses, today's players WATCHED just like we did, the defenses played by those of the 80s and 90s.

Players that can't let go of the game and think because they played high school ball and college ball that they know everything about basketball? HELL NO!!


I'll take Bruno's opinion that is supported by stats over the latter.

Bruno
02-23-2011, 03:40 AM
No doubt you'll win a lot brownie points with stat nerds who like to watch basketball but the opinions of people who play the game mean as much if not more to me to numbers.

That's fair. I mean, there have been situations in the past where I do side w/ the opinion of respected NBA personnel over what I specifically see on the stat sheet. Using "the Kobe/clutch" argument as an example. The stats suggest that he hasn't had the best FG% in the clutch over the past six or seven years. But at the same time MULTIPLE (not just one, two, or three, I'm talkin' about 10+ people whos opinions are held in high regard) legends/GM's/players or respected minds say they go with Kobe. IMO the best you can do is just take all that into account and formulate your own opinion.

W/ that being said, there are GM's, players, and coaches who are also "stat nerds", so do with that information as you will. IMO the greatest way to formulate your opinion is to combine both worlds; the opinions of legendary NBA minds, as well as evidence provided on the stat sheet.

And specific to this thread, and this topic, where are the opinions of people who play the game? I saw Tex Winter in JB's post, but do you know of anyone else?

BlinkManJan02
02-23-2011, 03:40 AM
I figured it would have been the other way around.

Bruno
02-23-2011, 03:42 AM
The opinions of which players that play the game? NBA? Then yeah okay I'll accept it. But even then when judging defenses, today's players WATCHED just like we did, the defenses played by those of the 80s and 90s.

Players that can't let go of the game and think because they played high school ball and college ball that they know everything about basketball? HELL NO!!


I'll take Bruno's opinion that is supported by stats over the latter.

Agreed.

It's human nature to romanticize the era of ball that you first grew to love/participated in. In that sense, anyone is susceptible to that. That's why you gotta love the stats too, they don't have loyalties or pre-conceived notions to them. The people who present them might, but the stats in and of themselves do not.

kArSoN RyDaH
02-23-2011, 03:45 AM
Agreed.

It's human nature to romanticize the era of ball that you first grew to love/participated in. In that sense, anyone is susceptible to that. That's why you gotta love the stats too, they don't have loyalties or pre-conceived notions to them. The people who present them might, but the stats in and of themselves do not.

Yeah and I'm not even that big on stats either. lol.

Chronz
02-23-2011, 04:59 AM
No doubt you'll win a lot brownie points with stat nerds who like to watch basketball but the opinions of people who play the game mean as much if not more to me to numbers.

You mean like when Wilt said people werent averaging 50 anymore because the league lacked scorers

kArSoN RyDaH
02-23-2011, 05:00 AM
You mean like when Wilt said people werent averaging 50 anymore because the league lacked scorers

He said that? :laugh2: LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

sevencastro
02-23-2011, 12:16 PM
stats stats stats what did you guys started playin bball yesterday watch the game play the game stats its not everything in the bball world again just watch a few games of the 90s and compare them to todays game

sevencastro
02-23-2011, 12:18 PM
I get your point but I find it invalid. If you've played basketball you'd understand that it's much harder with hands all over you than without. When you let NBA calibre players shoot without much pressure, well, they tend to score. And driving through the paint with 4 bodies and nowhere to go is slightly harder than driving the lane with just 1 guy trying to lock you down isn't it? You could argue that it's a harder task for the defending player but in the same way I can argue that the level of talent has fallen. ;)

this tottally agree except for the last part

NYKalltheway
02-23-2011, 01:31 PM
What I meant was that the overall talent has fallen. The so called 3rd and 4th options of every team are not as good as the guys on the 90s teams for example. I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and say Lebron would have been a failure in the 90s but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be as impressive.
Just watch guys like Kobe, Wade, Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady in their first 2-3 seasons. They were trying to "be Air Mike". And not actually Michael Jordan's overall skillset but just the part where he'd fly for the dunk! Too many Jordan dunking mimics. It's what the NBA selected to do. Become a dunkfest. Of course Kobe is not the same player now because a superstar needs to be effective on both ends and needs to develop his shooting range.


I'm not that old but I have a large archive of NBA playoffs (conference finals and championship finals) from early 80s till 1999 finals. I've seen the games.

The rules of 2005 ruined the game.

Since I see you are a stats lover, how about the fact that from 1980 till 2005 there weren't as many players averaging over 30 PPG in regular season. And how many different players managed that from 2005 till today. Their stats got inflated, you can't argue with that.

We are in the ISOLATION ERA. It's not proper basketball, sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2JG1AFFTnk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ
This is what NBA basketball means to me. Might sound sentimental and all, but this is the real *****...

And it's not just Jordan, but he is the GOAT(at least 99.99% of the world believe that) so the archives on youtube are everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJyxS1U0Tmo
I'm a Knicks fan. There's no way I'm gonna let anyone say that the 90s weren't tougher than the present era :D

flclfanman
02-23-2011, 01:48 PM
The defenses today are a joke compared to the Defenses of the 80s and 90s. The Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks would have put Pierce in a wheelchair for REAL. DWhistle would get snapped in half and wouldn't have to do his "I've been shot by a sniper" act to sell a foul call.

Imagine if Kobe had to play through hand checks this era. His points would have been halved. Today if you even sneeze on a guy they'll ***** about a no-call. Pathetic :pity:

Atticus Finch
02-23-2011, 02:06 PM
The defenses today are a joke compared to the Defenses of the 80s and 90s. The Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks would have put Pierce in a wheelchair for REAL. DWhistle would get snapped in half and wouldn't have to do his "I've been shot by a sniper" act to sell a foul call.

Imagine if Kobe had to play through hand checks this era. His points would have been halved. Today if you even sneeze on a guy they'll ***** about a no-call. Pathetic :pity:

Did you even bother reading the thread? Bruno had a couple awesome posts proving to me that more physical defense =/= "better" defense.

And if you honestly believe that last part then that means you think that the best players in the game today would be averaging 15-16 PPG in the 80s and 90s.

cardullo4321
02-23-2011, 02:28 PM
Its harder to defend against crab dribbling and 4 steps to the basket.

Chronz
02-23-2011, 03:55 PM
What I meant was that the overall talent has fallen. The so called 3rd and 4th options of every team are not as good as the guys on the 90s teams for example. I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and say Lebron would have been a failure in the 90s but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be as impressive.
Just watch guys like Kobe, Wade, Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady in their first 2-3 seasons. They were trying to "be Air Mike". And not actually Michael Jordan's overall skillset but just the part where he'd fly for the dunk! Too many Jordan dunking mimics. It's what the NBA selected to do. Become a dunkfest. Of course Kobe is not the same player now because a superstar needs to be effective on both ends and needs to develop his shooting range.
The overall talent has risen, some of the teams back in the 90's could win 50 with some really ****** rosters.

I saw guys like Tmac, Kobe, Wade and I dont believe any of your opinion pieces.



I'm not that old but I have a large archive of NBA playoffs (conference finals and championship finals) from early 80s till 1999 finals. I've seen the games.

The rules of 2005 ruined the game.

Incorrect the HC rules saved the game from an era of defensive dominance unlike anything ever seen in MJ's day.



Since I see you are a stats lover, how about the fact that from 1980 till 2005 there weren't as many players averaging over 30 PPG in regular season. And how many different players managed that from 2005 till today. Their stats got inflated, you can't argue with that.
LMFAO thats it? Thats your idea of a statistical analysis? Flip back a few pages for the real deal.



We are in the ISOLATION ERA. It's not proper basketball, sorry.
Actually if not for the rule changes people would still be running sets where they clear the entire side of the court for the scorer to go one on one. You obviously dont remember 90's ball. The use of zone defenses were built with the specific intent to promote ball movement. Its why so many players like AI, KG, Tmac all complained about the zone. They said they miss the way the game was played in MJ's day. IIRC Tmac and KG were making a joke of the whole thing (SLAM Article). Its not a pure zone so atleast the NBA allowed slasher to have a place in the league.


I'm a Knicks fan. There's no way I'm gonna let anyone say that the 90s weren't tougher than the present era :D
Atleast you admit your biases, your post makes alot more sense now.



He said that? :laugh2: LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
He played the game dawg, he knows wats up :o



stats stats stats what did you guys started playin bball yesterday watch the game play the game stats its not everything in the bball world again just watch a few games of the 90s and compare them to todays game
LMFAO

Ill take the argument that supports what I SAW. I dont care what you think you saw, unless you can measure it or refute the counterargument it really doesnt matter

Bruno
02-23-2011, 09:09 PM
The defenses today are a joke compared to the Defenses of the 80s and 90s. The Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks would have put Pierce in a wheelchair for REAL. DWhistle would get snapped in half and wouldn't have to do his "I've been shot by a sniper" act to sell a foul call.

Imagine if Kobe had to play through hand checks this era. His points would have been halved. Today if you even sneeze on a guy they'll ***** about a no-call. Pathetic :pity:

Read my posts on page #2 and #3. That notion isn't supported by any FACTS.

NYKalltheway
02-23-2011, 10:03 PM
I'd rather use my eyes than numbers when it's about BASKETBALL, so stats don't really say much to me unless we talk about the basic stuff.
You cannot calculate how good a player is defensively. Unless you can measure how many steps he can make, how fast his hands move etc, any reference is quite invalid when it comes to DEFENSE.
While we can also argue that for some situations in offense since a midrange jumpshot is worth the same thing as a layup or a dunk! Both are calculated in FG% without differentiating from eachother.
Stats are good, but they don't tell the truth always.