Ive heard it said that 2003-2004 was the NBA at its low point. Thinking about it.....

[RRR3]

I definitely remember that one.... watching games with friends or family, and talking about how its remotely possible for someone to be markedly worse at a much, much, easier shot.

I know. That shit legitimately bothered me.

[Legends66NBA7]

Good defense tends to bore people.

You can thank the offense being played for helping out the defense.

1999 was a shortened season anyways.

For one, there was too much isolation one one one basketball being played and there was no ball movement. But it wasn't due to being superior defense being played. Low I.Q. basketball players and poor shot selection with those iso plays helped the defense out a lot. Predictablility.

[catch24]

You can thank the offense being played for helping out the defense.

1999 was a shortened season anyways.

For one, there was too much isolation one one one basketball being played and there was no ball movement. But it wasn't due to being superiors defense being played. Low I.Q. basketball players and poor shot selection with those iso plays helped the defense out a lot. Predictablility.

I'd rather go by the facts; which favor team DRTG being at its absolute peak from '99-04.

I'm not impressed with copy & pasta either, Legends. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=122251

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd rather go by the facts; which favor team DRTG being at its absolute peak from '99-04.

I'm not impressed with copy & pasta either, Legends. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=122251

But the rating doesn't take into account the rules changes. The fact of the lockout, one and done players, lack of ball movement, poor shot selection, low I.Q. players, etc... Those things all factor in.

What did i copy and paste, the rules on nba.com ? The rules i could find on the internet ? I specifically showed you the rules post 04, did i not ?

Speaking of that post, that's wrong. I don't agree at all to astreik 50 point games, what purpose does that serve ?

[Replay32]

2004 did suck pretty bad. Definitely a weird year.

[Indian guy]

The only saving grace of that season was David upsetting Goliath in the Finals. There was basically no story worth covering otherwise(excluding LA, of course). TV ratings were at record lows. The level of play even worse. From an individual standpoint, every top-level star had a down year outside of KG. Teams couldn't score to save their lives. 100+ points was only possible if Dallas or Sacramento were involved. I remember both TNT and ESPN analysts routinely mocking the level-of-play that year, and in general the perception surrounding the league was that talent was severely lacking. Games were deemed unwatchable if it didn't involve Sacramento, Dallas or LA. And in the post-Kobe-rape world, thinly veiled racism directed at the league was rampant in the media. It was the NBA's lowest point since the 70's.

The rule change in 04-05, some major trades(Shaq->Miami and Nash->Phoenix) and the emergence of LeBron and Wade really saved the NBA the following season. And with further maturation of those young superstars, Kobe hitting his prime and some great draft classes, the league's only gone from strength-to-strength since. It all started with the rule change in 04-05 though. That was huge. The league had become way too obsessed with defense to compensate for the lack of talent otherwise. Something needed to be done.

[catch24]

But the rating doesn't take into account the rules changes.

"Rules changes" have been going on for decades. Listen to this, particularly what Doug Collins says at 5:26 (goes onto the 7:00 min mark or so) - and this was in '95...

There's just no way players' shooting percentages dropped 3 and for some 4% points during a two year-stretch and back up a year later because of some pseudo-belief that players were 'lower iq' just a year or two earlier. That makes zero sense.

You got your information from that thread, and re-worded what you wanted to type. At least that's what google says

[Dave3]

It always bothers me that Tracy McGrady didn't win MVP in 2002-03. Yeah, he's my favorite player so I'm biased, but I don't think people remember how ****ing incredible he was that year.

League leading stats bolded:

32.1 PPG/6.5 RPG/5.5 APG/1.7 SPG/0.8 BPG/45.7 FG%/38.6 3P%/79.3 FT%/30.3 PER/0.262 WS/48

And check out his team: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2003.html

Derrick Rose won MVP this year because people seemed to think he was so valuable because his team was garbage without him (not true). Why didn't McGrady get that kind of logic applied to him? I know Tim Duncan had a brilliant year in 2002-03 as well, as did Shaq and Kobe, but T-Mac will always be the MVP in my mind that year.

Because the Bulls won 62 games and the Magic won 41. That's a key part in MVP voting. What really irked me though was Kobe finishing ahead of Tmac in the MVP voting....

[NugzHeat3]

I remember that year so well, was one of my favorite NBA seasons ever. It was Wade's rookie year, and our lineup was

Dwyane Wade
Eddie Jones
Caron Butler
Lamar Odom
Brian Grant
bench:
Rafer Alston
Rasual Butler
Udonis Haslem

mannn those were the days. i loved going to our games. probably my favorite moment of the entire season;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3H77gIpYi8

we upset the hornets and then almost upset the powerhouse pacers in the second round. probably my favorite Heat season ever.

Wade was a beast after that wrist injury. That team was really good after the All-Star break. I think they had a long ass winning streak at home.

Then Wade hit 2 GWs in the series vs the Hornets and we gave the Pacers a tough fight.

They had depth and a balanced team but no star talent, kind of like the opposite with today's team.

[Jacks3]

What's strange is that the previous year you had 5 guys putting up amazing seasons (KG/Duncan/Kobe/T-Mac/Duncan) and then all them saw huge drop-offs in play the following season except for KG. Weird.

[chips93]

I'd rather go by the facts; which favor team DRTG being at its absolute peak from '99-04.

I'm not impressed with copy & pasta either, Legends. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=122251

if you put the worst offensive team against a decent defensive team, the decent team will shut them down, and look good on defense. now extrapolate this over an entire league. say every team just got worse at offense, it would be reflected in the defensive stats. so posting that its a fact that the defense was better in this era due to defensive rating is incorrect. they are playing against different offenses than other eras, so this point is moot.

average offensive rating of any specific year = average defensive rating of any specific year.

last year's average offensive rating was 107.3, guess what the defensive rating was? 107.3

i cant believe this has to be posted.

[RRR3]

Because the Bulls won 62 games and the Magic won 41. That's a key part in MVP voting. What really irked me though was Kobe finishing ahead of Tmac in the MVP voting....

The Magic won 42 iirc, but they would have been horrendous w/o T-Mac. And yeah, Kobe (and Shaq for that matter) getting more votes still bothers me. Duncan and T-Mac were the 2 guys with the best case for MVP that year IMO.

[Legends66NBA7]

"Rules changes" have been going on for decades. Listen to this, particularly what Doug Collins says at 5:26 - and this was in '95...

There's just no way players' shooting percentages dropped 3 and for some 4% points during a two year-stretch and back up a year later because of some pseudo-belief that players were 'lower iq' just a year or two earlier. That makes zero sense.

You got your information from that thread, and re-worded what you wanted to type. At least that's what google says

That's a good quote by coach Collins, but i've been aware about the rules changes in the NBA since the first true zone defense not being allowed since the 30's. I specifically am talking about the rules changes post 04, not about the one in 95 or 93 or anything that happened pre 99.

Well what about the more 3's been taken ? Just look at this thread about some of the players like Baron Davis and Antoine Walker jacking 3's like crazy.
Players attempting or even jacking more 3's are going to bring that % down.

Lack of big men posting up and getting better look at the basket and settling for the outside shot is going to bring the % down.

I didn't necessarily mean soley on the fact of low I.Q. players but there is more factors involved and i stated them already.

No, I didn't get my information from that thread (though, scrolling through it now I can see from both sides there is an exgerration. And incredibally long, good read though, not that it means much). I don't exactly know what google is trying to say, but google would be wrong in this case.

I live in T.O., so my first source to me about anything major about the game (if i didn't know it) is always either players, coaches, commentators, etc.. and then i look it up to confirm it. Jack Armstrong, Raptors color commentator, always talks about some of those rules changes and the past game when he gets the chance. I've been able to talk to him once while i was at the A.C.C, along with Leo Rautins. He answered some of my questions and i got a certain understanding from where I stand on this subject and formed an opinion on it.

Sorry that you feel differently on it, catch. We shall agree to disagree.

[catch24]

if you put the worst offensive team against a decent defensive team, the decent team will shut them down, and look good on defense. now extrapolate this over an entire league. say every team just got worse at offense, it would be reflected in the defensive stats. so posting that its a fact that the defense was better in this era due to defensive rating is incorrect. they are playing against different offenses than other eras, so this point is moot.

Are you high? Defensive rating goes hand-in-hand with possession, and pace. Whether teams then ran more and 'faced different offenses' is irrelevant. The fact I was alluding to was the game from 99-04 was dramatically slowed down and heavily reliant on team defense - hence better defense being played.

i cant believe this has to be posted.

I can't either, considering how irrelevant it was.

[chips93]

Defensive rating goes hand-in-hand with possession, and pace. Whether teams then ran more and 'faced different offenses' is irrelevant. The fact I was alluding to was the game from 99-04 was dramatically slowed down and heavily reliant on defense - hence better defense being played.

as does offense

what you dont seem to understand is that posting defensive ratings, or saying that the defensive ratings peaked back then is irrelevant.

they are inherently tied to the offense that they are facing