Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 241
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,811
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I didn't imply it would, nor do I have such an expectation.

    I do expect basketball to be played though, because in the last few years it feels like watching pre-teens play a video game version instead.
    And I'm guessing every generation had felt that way. Sports adjust. They always do. The basketball you grew up on has changed. And the generation before you probably thought the basketball you grew up on was worse than the basketball they grew up on.

    And that's nostalgia for you. I mean, do we really think the Bulls scoring 74 points in the ECF game 7 and shooting 30% from the field is fun basketball? We remember the good parts from the good ole days and forget the consistent games in the 80s (and still a tom of free throws).

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    65,082
    And actual offenses evolve too. Back in the 90ís the 3 was still seen as a gimmick shot that very few players used as a true weapon. The ball didnít move much because the value was in guys who could score in the one on one. Other rules made paint play more important than wing play.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,936
    Guys, I'm from Europe. I've seen like 7 different brands of basketball since the 90s.

    The current NBA is by far the worst thing I've seen in basketball. it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it just sucks to watch now. It's been on a steady downtrend for years, but the last 5-6 years, oh my...

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,543
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    And actual offenses evolve too. Back in the 90ís the 3 was still seen as a gimmick shot that very few players used as a true weapon. The ball didnít move much because the value was in guys who could score in the one on one. Other rules made paint play more important than wing play.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The triangle offense (or triple post offense), the dominant offense of the 90s, was all about moving the ball. The 3 was already on a steady climb in the 90s with MJ averaging 3 3s a game in 1990 and Michael Adams attempting close to 9 a game the next year.

    I think the main thing that we remember that makes the 90s feel better was the explosive play and the characters playing the game then. Now the players are much more polished and corporate. Jordan, Payton, Rodman, Sheed, Barkley, Big Ben Wallace, Reggie Miller, Shaq, Mutombo, Oakley, Grandmama Larry Johnson, The Mailman, The Answer, The Bad Boys ... now the stuff that those players got up to with trash talk through the media and actual fights on the court as well as some truly outrageous behavior all gets shut down quick and for the most part has been polished out of them before they make it to the NBA stage. We have also learned that bodies break down when a player gets by primarily on explosively attacking the rim, so those habits are fairly quickly trained out of them to the point there are fewer and fewer D-wade's going to the rim with abandon, not because it's not possible, but because it shortens careers.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,714
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Guys, I'm from Europe. I've seen like 7 different brands of basketball since the 90s.

    The current NBA is by far the worst thing I've seen in basketball. it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it just sucks to watch now. It's been on a steady downtrend for years, but the last 5-6 years, oh my...
    He says while yelling from his porch at the kids to get off his lawn.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,936
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    He says while yelling from his porch at the kids to get off his lawn.
    Are you telling me it is not true?

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    65,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The triangle offense (or triple post offense), the dominant offense of the 90s, was all about moving the ball. The 3 was already on a steady climb in the 90s with MJ averaging 3 3s a game in 1990 and Michael Adams attempting close to 9 a game the next year.

    I think the main thing that we remember that makes the 90s feel better was the explosive play and the characters playing the game then. Now the players are much more polished and corporate. Jordan, Payton, Rodman, Sheed, Barkley, Big Ben Wallace, Reggie Miller, Shaq, Mutombo, Oakley, Grandmama Larry Johnson, The Mailman, The Answer, The Bad Boys ... now the stuff that those players got up to with trash talk through the media and actual fights on the court as well as some truly outrageous behavior all gets shut down quick and for the most part has been polished out of them before they make it to the NBA stage. We have also learned that bodies break down when a player gets by primarily on explosively attacking the rim, so those habits are fairly quickly trained out of them to the point there are fewer and fewer D-wade's going to the rim with abandon, not because it's not possible, but because it shortens careers.
    Triangle offense is outdated based on today's offenses.

    That MJ/Michael Adams argument is such a bad faith argument. 8.5 3PTA/Game was the MAJOR outlier in Adams career (FWIW his team averaged 12.9, so he took 2/3 of his team's 3's, hard to find someone that takes that large a percent). Even Reggie Miller, a prolific shooter from 3 at the time, topped out at 6.6/game.

    Reggie Miller averaged 4.7 3PTA/Game. In 2018/19 that would be T-70. Michael Adams averaged 4.4 3PTA/Game. In 2018/19 that would have been 80th.

    Average per team 3 point shooting:
    1990/91 - 7.1 (Yea that's for the entire game)
    1905/96 - 16.0
    2000/01 - 13.7
    2005/06 - 16.0
    2010/11 - 18.0
    2015/16 - 24.1
    2020/21 - 34.6

    Even if you want to argue that it's "on a steady climb" there's no arguing that it's much more prolific now than in the 90's.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,543
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Triangle offense is outdated based on today's offenses.

    That MJ/Michael Adams argument is such a bad faith argument. 8.5 3PTA/Game was the MAJOR outlier in Adams career (FWIW his team averaged 12.9, so he took 2/3 of his team's 3's, hard to find someone that takes that large a percent). Even Reggie Miller, a prolific shooter from 3 at the time, topped out at 6.6/game.

    Reggie Miller averaged 4.7 3PTA/Game. In 2018/19 that would be T-70. Michael Adams averaged 4.4 3PTA/Game. In 2018/19 that would have been 80th.

    Average per team 3 point shooting:
    1990/91 - 7.1 (Yea that's for the entire game)
    1905/96 - 16.0
    2000/01 - 13.7
    2005/06 - 16.0
    2010/11 - 18.0
    2015/16 - 24.1
    2020/21 - 34.6

    Even if you want to argue that it's "on a steady climb" there's no arguing that it's much more prolific now than in the 90's.
    You were talking about the 90s and the triangle is a ball movement offense that was dominant in the 90s. That was the point.

    The MJ/Adams argument was simply that the 3s were already on the way up then, unlike the 80s where 3s were much more rare. No question there was a major jump after 14/15 when the "no shooting team can win the title" can win it all and the idea that more 3s resulted in lower efficiency was finally put to rest.

    But really, that was the secondary point I was trying to make, the main point was that we feel like the 90s was better because of the less corporate and polished feel to the game, and unfortunately it's pretty unlikely that ever comes back. LeBron and Steph are boring "perfect" stars which is why the NBA pushes them so hard.

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,811
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Are you telling me it is not true?
    I mean, what you're saying is an opinion. So universally, you're answer isn't correct. If you're a fan of outside shooting, there's never been a better time to watch the NBA. The types of shots guys like Steph, Dame and others hit on a regular basis are insane and happen at a significantly higher rate than ever before. The sheer number of guys capable of putting someone on a poster is so much higher than ever before. You may not like that brand of basketball, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who prefer that.

    I think to me, the reason to "improve" the game in my mind is to just open up more styles of basketball. I don't want the league to punish great shooting, but I'd prefer the league not reward mediocre shooting. A great post up team should be able to match the efficiency of a mediocre shooting team.

    There's not one style of basketball thats neccessarily better than others. I'm sure there's plenty of folks who grew up on today's basketball that would watch the un-athletic, post banging days of the NBA and think it's worse. To me, I'd love to open up alternate avenues to compete and instead of almost the entire league trying to build a 5 out offense, make the 3s and FTs type offense only be more efficient of you're really good at it.

    For example, this year, there are 7 players averaging 1 point per possession or more from the post (minimum 3 posts per game and 20 games played.) 2 of those are at exactly 1 PPP. Only 2, kawhi, is above 1.1 at 1.15. So basically only 7 players post touches are more efficient than a 33% shooter from 3. The most efficient post player in the league currently (and kawhi barely hits the 3 posts per game minimum, so he's not a high frequency guy) is the equivalent to a 38% 3pt shooter.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You were talking about the 90s and the triangle is a ball movement offense that was dominant in the 90s. That was the point.

    The MJ/Adams argument was simply that the 3s were already on the way up then, unlike the 80s where 3s were much more rare. No question there was a major jump after 14/15 when the "no shooting team can win the title" can win it all and the idea that more 3s resulted in lower efficiency was finally put to rest.

    But really, that was the secondary point I was trying to make, the main point was that we feel like the 90s was better because of the less corporate and polished feel to the game, and unfortunately it's pretty unlikely that ever comes back. LeBron and Steph are boring "perfect" stars which is why the NBA pushes them so hard.
    A bit of an aside to that last point too. Alot of that is our own fault though as well because of that 24 hour sports cycle. We've created these corporate stars because we follow every waking moment of their life. We hear all these stories about the crap guys pulled in the 80s and 90s with partying and all that, and now the second someone is outside their team hotel, every idiot with a phone can take pictures and upload to social media. And we expect our stars to "stick to sports" yet we follow and report everything they do 24/7.

    Same thing with super teams. As we've all said, super teams have always existed. The only difference was how they were acquired. In today's NBA, you couldn't afford to keep the showtime Lakers together. But in that Era, you could keep those guys together. But in so many minds, that's an "acceptable" super team whereas stars choosing to join a location is not. But it also comes down to how we talk about stars. Sure the narrative was Malone and Stockton should get a ring and it's a disappointment they couldn't, but we didn't completely write them off. Now if you don't win a ring, you're a failure. And then we get surprised when guys join super teams. We'll sit there and have guys like Steven A say Dame needs to ask out of Portland because they'll never win a ring in portland with him. Then on the other hand, if he asks out, goes to LAL with Bron and AD, we'll try to say his ring is less legit because he joined up with other stars.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,008
    the origin of this thread is so dumb lol. Shots at the rim will always be the most prime real estate, regardless of three point volume. Thus, bigs will always have a role in the league. Nothing needs to change in this regard. Nearly every team in the league has a traditional big man that plays at least 25 mpg

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,543
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    A bit of an aside to that last point too. Alot of that is our own fault though as well because of that 24 hour sports cycle. We've created these corporate stars because we follow every waking moment of their life. We hear all these stories about the crap guys pulled in the 80s and 90s with partying and all that, and now the second someone is outside their team hotel, every idiot with a phone can take pictures and upload to social media. And we expect our stars to "stick to sports" yet we follow and report everything they do 24/7.

    Same thing with super teams. As we've all said, super teams have always existed. The only difference was how they were acquired. In today's NBA, you couldn't afford to keep the showtime Lakers together. But in that Era, you could keep those guys together. But in so many minds, that's an "acceptable" super team whereas stars choosing to join a location is not. But it also comes down to how we talk about stars. Sure the narrative was Malone and Stockton should get a ring and it's a disappointment they couldn't, but we didn't completely write them off. Now if you don't win a ring, you're a failure. And then we get surprised when guys join super teams. We'll sit there and have guys like Steven A say Dame needs to ask out of Portland because they'll never win a ring in portland with him. Then on the other hand, if he asks out, goes to LAL with Bron and AD, we'll try to say his ring is less legit because he joined up with other stars.
    I think the devaluing players for no ring is not new at all. I remember it as a hall of fame worthiness debate back in the 90s for players from the 80s.

    You do have a point with the hot-take media take thing having a toxic effect. I avoid all that stuff but no question it's popular and powerful and don't really have anything to do with reality. There is also the power of the media has been reduced with the players to the point where the players cultivate relationships with star players and they then don't report "fairly" when those players are involved. It's kind of twisted.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,714
    Michael Adams shot 8.5 3's a game in 91, the next most was Vernon Maxwell at 6.2 and third was Dennis Scott at 4.1.

    Today Michael Adams would be 6th in 3PTA, Vernon 38th, and Dennis Scott 100th.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,543
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Michael Adams shot 8.5 3's a game in 91, the next most was Vernon Maxwell at 6.2 and third was Dennis Scott at 4.1.

    Today Michael Adams would be 6th in 3PTA, Vernon 38th, and Dennis Scott 100th.
    War already made that point. My point was that the rate of 3s was going up, and yes there was a jump in 14-15 to unprecedented levels.

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,008
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Michael Adams shot 8.5 3's a game in 91, the next most was Vernon Maxwell at 6.2 and third was Dennis Scott at 4.1.

    Today Michael Adams would be 6th in 3PTA, Vernon 38th, and Dennis Scott 100th.
    I don't understand the implication here. Is this....a bad thing? What's wrong with the league finally waking up to the fact that when driving lanes are less clogged it optimizes the offense? I wish the spacing revolution happened decades ago. Imagine Magic in a 4 out system lol.

    We should be talking more about how slow the league was to catch on as a whole, especially given the success of the 4 out Hakeem Rockets, the Shaq Lakers, and the Nash Mavs/Suns. We're in an era of offenses being fully optimized for players to get the best shot opportunities at the rim, as opposed to the deadball era in the late 90s/early 2000s, where every guard was hell bent on doing their best MJ impression, isoing 12 times a game.

    Also the notion that the "throwback big" is becoming extinct is such an easy myth to dispell. Who took up 100% of the minutes at center on the title winning Lakers last season? Who's starting at center right now for the Pelicans? How many teams aren't starting a big that gets a very large majority of their points in the paint?

    Are there less bigs in the league today that get the majority of the points purely from pounding the ball for 8 seconds in the post? Sure but like....who cares? Posting up isn't the most efficient play to go to the majority of the time, nor is it particularly entertaining to watch.

    Even if they took away 3 second violations as MTM suggested, I'd venture to guess that this wouldn't change post up frequency for the majority of teams, as it's simply not an equitable form of offense at a high volume.


    The fact remains that 25% of all FGA are taken within 0-3 feet in 2021, where in say for example in the 2001 season 27% of all FGA were taken within 0-3 feet. Not exactly an enormous chasm.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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