Surely there is concensus that "modern" defenses have more freedom right?

[Showtime80']

And that is the Jordan hangover talking full effect! Jordan was also a generational talent with an all-time side kick in Pippen and probably the best coach in history in PJax. After their run of titles in the 90's a and thanks to the increase in salaries as well as a harder cap, teams began building offenses around 1 or 2 players, most of the time perimeter oriented guys. It worked wonderfully when you had Shaq/Kobe or Duncan/Robinson but it became awful to watch guys like Iverson, VC, TMac, Allen trying to mimic 80's Jordan going basically 1 against 5.

I agree with Still Ballin, that philosophy produced some HORRIBLE basketball from 1994 to 2004 and the league were basically FORCED to do something about it.

The rule changes were more about how to change the way teams were building rosters more so than to alter a style of play. You say zones I say removal of the hand check and 3-seconds in the lane rule have made driving lanes a lot easier to penetrate for perimeter players. It evens itself out. The decay of low post big men started around the mid 90's well before the rule changes when basically Tim Duncan was the last true player to come into the league with a commitment to that style.

Even after the rule changes you still saw guys like Wade, Kobe and Lebron win titles while being leading scorers and still going iso more than Jordan was doing during the last 3-peat. The difference was that those teams were more well-balanced than those that were being built (Aside from Bulls, Jazz and Pacers) from 1994 to 2004 and that is what the league wanted.

The result, offenses DEFINITELY look better than what they did from 2000 to 2004 but are NOWHERE near and probably never will be as fluid and potent as what they were in the 80's

[DonDadda59]

How were the Spurs an 80's light offense?

If we're using Imobsessedwithd*cks '5 man offense' argument, then the Spurs are definitely a lite version of Showtime Lakers or Celtics squads. Obviously the Spurs take more 3s (even though they're always middle of the pack in terms of attempts) but look at the offensive distribution of say the Spurs last year and the '85 Lakers. Then look at some game tape and come back here and tell me SA was the better offensive/passing/'5 man team'.

Some guys here act like Pop invented passing last year.

The Spurs last season averaged less assists on generally higher paces than all but one Bulls championship squad.

I agree with Still Ballin, that philosophy produced some HORRIBLE basketball from 1994 to 2004 and the league were basically FORCED to do something about it.

What are you talking about? It only got worse after the rule changes. Perimeter scoring exploded and most squads were one man teams. '06 Wade was a one man wrecking crew in the finals, '07 LeBron iso'ed his way to the finals, the big 3 went at it with Kobe/Pau (running the triangle mind you) twice, Dwight and random dudes made the finals, then we entered the LeBron ball/Big 3 era in the East vs the Spurs, a one man Dallas team, and Iso all stars OKC.

What exactly changed?

[Showtime80']

I love the Spurs but give me a break their offense is not even in the same ball park as the 80's Celtics or Lakers. Just because you shoot 20 more 3's than those teams because you build your team with cheap spot up shooters instead of all around playmakers doesn't make you're better at shooting for God's sake.

Look at the raping the Spurs gave the Heat last year with basically and older Tim Duncan as the ONLY low post threat!!! Can you imaging what the Celtics and Lakers would've done to them with 3 GREAT INSIDE PLAYERS EACH! Guys like Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, Scott Wedmann and Dennis Johnson would've had a field day shooting open 2's and 3's. Not to mention the all-time fast break games both teams had. Pick your poison.

Present Spurs are great, not in the class of 80s Lakers or Celtics though

[navy]

If we're using Imobsessedwithd*cks '5 man offense' argument, then the Spurs are definitely a lite version of Showtime Lakers or Celtics squads. Obviously the Spurs take more 3s (even though they're always middle of the pack in terms of attempts) but look at the offensive distribution of say the Spurs last year and the '85 Lakers. Then look at some game tape and come back here and tell me SA was the better offensive/passing/'5 man team'.

Some guys here act like Pop invented passing last year.

The Spurs last season averaged less assists on generally higher paces than all but one Bulls championship squad.

They are usually at the top in terms of percentages so they dont need as many attempts.

It's just a different sort of game. Because of the three point threat defensives literally have to scramble all over the floor to cover everyone. It's different from the 80s or 90s where they stuck more or less to their man because they were forced to, and because you didnt need to cover the three point line to the same extent.

In fact, Larry Bird himself claims defense is better today. Not that I agree, because I dont, but he literally played in the 80s offense. Just different.

[Im Still Ballin]

It has been shown all throughout league history that offenses and defenses constantly evolve

Sure perimeter scoring exploded after that rule change, but the isolation shift still would take a few more years to now where it is

And soon defenses are going to find a way to counter this pace and space game

Tactics are constantly evolving

[LAZERUSS]

They are usually at the top in terms of percentages so they dont need as many attempts.

It's just a different sort of game. Because of the three point threat defensives literally have to scramble all over the floor to cover everyone. It's different from the 80s or 90s where they stuck more or less to their man because they were forced to, and because you didnt need to cover the three point line to the same extent.

In fact, Larry Bird himself claims defense is better today. Not that I agree, but he literally played in the 80s offense.....

As a side-note...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ain/index.html

When the topic of all-time greatest player was once raised, a fellow named Larry Bird didn't hesitate. "Let me tell you something," Bird said. "For a while, they were saying that I was the greatest. And before me, it was Magic who was the greatest. And then it's Michael's turn. But open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is."

BTW, Magic, Bird, West, and other's, constantly change their opinions.

[JohnFreeman]

It's called zone-sandwich. Don't you read the good threads here?

[Dr.J4ever]

On Wilt...oh, of course.

BUT, in his rookie season, he scored 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%. In his third year, he scored 50.4 ppg on a .506 (and on a .613 FT%.) In his 4th year... 44.8 ppg on a .528. In his 6th year... 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG% (BTW, they had widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, and it had ZERO effect on Wilt's production.) In his 7th, he became more selective...and a 24.1 ppg on a .683. HOWEVER, before the start of his 69-70 season, his new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And in his first nine games... a league-leading 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%. Unfortunately, in that ninth game (in which he had scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes)...he shredded his knee, and he was never the same offensive force again.

My point being, that Wilt was still a 30+ ppg scorer in his 11th season in the league, and a full decade after his rookie year. And, his efficiency (at least from the field) was truly remarkable.


As for the rest of your post...Shaq was a DOMINANT player from his second year on into his 14th. And in the period from '98 thru '04, which was the best defensive period of this era...he was STILL putting up 30 ppg seasons on near .600 shooting. Furthermore, at way past his peak, and as recently as his 2009 season, he still was capable of hanging a 45 point game,

I'm sorry, but a truly dominant big man, like a prime Wilt, Kareem, McAdoo, Moses, Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq...would have ZERO issues with dominating in today's NBA. In fact, with the spacing, they likely would be even more dominant.

Oh no question. Moses would dominate today. He would make Kevin Love look like, well, Kevin Love.

Basketball is basketball, and whatever changes the game undergoes, at it's heart, it's the same game. Adjustments are made. Maybe Moses would play with a stretch 4 who can guard perimeter players and play pick n roll defense, but Moses would guard the 5 position just like used to, and dominate offensively and on the boards, just like he used to.

[navy]

As a side-note...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ain/index.html




BTW, Magic, Bird, West, and other's, constantly change their opinions.

I know they are full of shit. Like I said, I didnt agree.
I think defenses are different not better, but's its not some outlandish claim the kids who never saw the 80s say like people make it out to be.

[3ball]

let's look at the facts we know for certain - we know that today's game now has spacing.. we know that paint-camping has been banned along with various physicality and hand-checking.

if there was no extra defensive strategy to handle these extra burdens, then it would be far easier to score today than previous eras.

fortunately, coaches came up with extra strategy to offset these things - but don't mistake the extra strategy for defenses being "better".. that's the way a 3rd grader thinks.. the extra strategy merely ensures that it's just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras when there weren't these extra burdens on the defense.. the stats demonstrate the steadiness of defensive effectiveness over the eras.

[Im Still Ballin]

You cannot argue that offenses are the best they've been atleast since the 80's

And even then they didn't have the quality of shooting we have now

[Showtime80']

I'm with you Dadda, as I said in my post, iso and 2 star centric teams were still prevalent AFTER the rule changes but what I feel the league wanted to kill off and prevent from spreading was the Iverson-like offenses were you had a team reaching the Finals with basically one offensive weapon scoring 30+ points on horrible FG% (those Sixers were painful to watch)

Now a days you at least flank the so called "stars" with more long distance spot up shooters (Kerr/Korver type) so they can keep the defense honest and somehow make the offense more balanced. Those Sixers didn't have ANYBODY who could make a shot beyond 20 feet on a consistent basis including AI, like I said, horrible offensive team.

[LAZERUSS]

You cannot argue that offenses are the best they've been atleast since the 80's

And even then they didn't have the quality of shooting we have now

Nah...instead we now have either a driving layup, a dunk, or a 3 pt FG. The mid-range game is becoming non-existent.

[navy]

Nah...instead we now have either a driving layup, a dunk, or a 3 pt FG. The mid-range game is becoming non-existent.

Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.

[3ball]

Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.

move the 3-point line back 1-3 feet.

3-point shooting has just gotten so much better, that it's too easy of a shot - the entire game is based around getting spreading the floor and getting 3-point looks (for the extra point to boost eFG).

this makes the game boring for some fans - if you want to bring back the good aspects of previous eras, move the line back and force guys to get good at all kinds of two-pointers again...

the only problem with this idea is that it would force the NBA to make the court a tad bigger, but i think that would be good for the game too.