We know why ORtg's were 1-2 points higher in the 80's

[3ball]

.
Teams played in the paint and crashed the offensive glass more in the 80's, which created more high efficiency [COLOR="Navy"]transition[/COLOR] opportunities.

However, previous eras faced superior [COLOR="DarkRed"]halfcourt[/COLOR] defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, no-spacing) that offset the greater transition opportunities, which is why ORtg's were only 1-2 points higher even though the gap in pace was significantly bigger.

Additionally, statisticians from Nylon Calculus and Grantland proved that the 2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by approximately 4 points, in addition to the aforementioned transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities and 2nd chances.

.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And players benefited from the defense being out of position due to them crashing the glass so much on offense.

Thus the high efficiency across the board and inflated offensive stats.

[3ball]

And players benefited from the defense being out of position due to them crashing the glass so much on offense.

The "defense being out of position" that you're referring to is the greater TRANSITION opportunities from offensive players crashing the glass.

But in the HALFCOURT set, the defenses weren't out of position - infact, the greater transition opportunities were offset by far superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no-spacing), which is why the ORtg gap between the eras is only 1-2 points.

Thus the high efficiency across the board and inflated offensive stats.

Per 100 Possessions in Playoffs

[COLOR="DarkRed"]JORDAN[/COLOR]:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 43.3 pts.. 2.2 oreb.. 6.1 dreb.. 7.4 ast.. 4.0 tov.. 56.8 ts.. 118 ortg
[COLOR="Navy"]LEBRON[/COLOR]:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 36.4 pts.. 2.1 oreb.. 9.4 dreb.. 8.8 ast.. 4.6 tov.. 56.7 ts.. 115 ortg

Jordan scores 20% more with nearly equal assists and less turnovers, and also superior shooting efficiency (fg, ts) and per possession efficiency (ortg).
.

[Smoke117]

[3ball]

Chill, we've had an ISH breakthrough - 80's ORtg's were 1-2 points higher due to more transition opportunities from crashing the offensive glass more, which means that halfcourt defense had nothing to do it.

Infact, superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, no spacing) was needed to offset the extra transition and keep the difference in ORtg's to a negligible 1-2 points.

[ralph_i_el]

Teams Crashed the basket, which means you had more attempts under the rim off Orebounds (very efficient play),

AND
AND
AND

more easy transition opportunities because people were crashing instead of playing defense.

This means 80's numbers and inflated. Duh

3Balls loses again. Nothing to see here folks.

[feyki]

That's the good point . Nice catch .

Only early 00's was tougher than Back .




[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]

2016 - %54.1 TS

2010 - %54.3 TS

2004 - %51.6 TS

1993 - %53.6 TS

1986 - %54.1 TS

[/FONT]

[Yao Ming's Foot]

[QUOTE]

The "defense being out of position" that you're referring to is the greater TRANSITION opportunities from offensive players crashing the glass.

But in the HALFCOURT set, the defenses weren't out of position - infact, the greater transition opportunities were offset by far superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no-spacing), which is why the ORtg gap between the eras is only 1-2 points.

So what? Box scores don't differentiate from transitional and fast break points. Jordan's numbers are inflated.

[3ball]

.

The higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increased ORtg by [COLOR="Red"]4 points[/COLOR]:

From Nylon Calculus:

Looking at the league-average level, the takeaway is this: an NBA team generally improves on offense by about 0.62 points per 100 possessions for each percentage point increase in its offensive rebound rate. This means that[COLOR="Navy"] if NBA teams were to improve their offensive rebounding from 23% (where it is now) to 30% (where it was a few years ago), they would generally score about 4.3 points more per 100 possessions[/COLOR].

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/01/06/...hree-pointers/
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.c...ve-rebounding/

From Grantland:

The general conclusion the authors presented at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, based on data from the 2011-12 season, was that [COLOR="Navy"]teams could net about 4 extra points per game by recalibrating their philosophy toward offensive rebounding[/COLOR] — that teams were being too cautious.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pa...ition-defense/

.

[3ball]

So what? Box scores don't differentiate from transitional and fast break points. Jordan's numbers are inflated.

Jordan faced superior halfcourt defense that offset the greater transition opportunities, which is why ORtg's were only 1-2 points higher even though the gap in pace was significantly bigger.

And in Jordan's case, he wasn't even helped by extra transition/faster pace because his Bulls played at the slowest pace in the league.. The Bulls played at a 88.1 pace in 1991 playoffs, compared to 92.7 for this year's Cavs, and Jordan's playoffs and Finals for all his championship runs were played at the SAME pace as Lebron's runs, shown below:

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]PACE IN PLAYOFFS[/COLOR]:

1991:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 93.3
1992:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 91.7
1993:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 90.8
1996:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 87.1
1997:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 87.2
1998:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 85.9

2007:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 89.5
2011:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 87.8
2012:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 89.0
2013:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 89.5
2014:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 90.6
2015:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 94.4
2016:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 93.0

[COLOR="DarkRed"]PACE IN FINALS[/COLOR]:

1991:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 85.8
1992:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 92.3
1993:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 89.7
1996:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 83.5
1997:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 84.0
1998:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 82.0

2007:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 82.8
2011:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 85.5
2012:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 88.6
2013:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 88.1
2014:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 87.4
2015:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 90.7
2016:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 92.0

Regardless of era, pace [COLOR="DarkRed"]ALWAYS[/COLOR] slows down in the playoffs - pace was 94.0 in 1988 playoffs, compared to 94.4 in 2016 playoffs..

[CuterThanRubio]

Defense was at its lowest point in the 80s and early 90s (Facts!)

Explain why the majority of the highest scoring games occurred during those two decades?

The Suns dropped 107 at HALFTIME in the 1990 season!

The washed up Celtics splashed 157 on Ewings' Knicks in the 1990 playoffs with zero overtime!

I could list them all but you can look at them for yourself and come to your own conclusion!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ring_NBA_games

[3ball]

Explain why the majority of the highest scoring games occurred during those two decades?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ring_NBA_games

Teams played in the paint and crashed the offensive glass more in the 80's, which created more high efficiency [COLOR="Navy"]transition[/COLOR] opportunities.

However, previous eras faced superior [COLOR="DarkRed"]halfcourt[/COLOR] defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, no-spacing) that offset the greater transition opportunities, which is why ORtg's were only 1-2 points higher even though the gap in pace was significantly bigger.

Additionally, statisticians from Nylon Calculus and Grantland proved that the 2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by approximately 4 points, in addition to the aforementioned transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities/offensive rebounding.

[3ball]

.

2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by [COLOR="red"]4 points[/COLOR]:

From Nylon Calculus:

Looking at the league-average level, the takeaway is this: an NBA team generally improves on offense by about 0.62 points per 100 possessions for each percentage point increase in its offensive rebound rate. This means that[COLOR="Navy"] if NBA teams were to improve their offensive rebounding from 23% (where it is now) to 30% (where it was a few years ago), they would generally score about 4.3 points more per 100 possessions[/COLOR][/COLOR].

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/01/06/...hree-pointers/
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.c...ve-rebounding/

From Grantland:

The general conclusion the authors presented at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, based on data from the 2011-12 season, was that [COLOR="Navy"]teams could net about 4 extra points per game by recalibrating their philosophy toward offensive rebounding[/COLOR] — that teams were being too cautious.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pa...ition-defense/

In addition to adding 4 points to ORtg through 2nd chances, the higher offensive rebounding of the 80's created more high-efficiency transition, which increased pace and ORtg many more points.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities and offensive rebounding.

[COLOR="darkred"]Conclusion:

Statisticians from Nylon Calculus and Grantland proved that the 2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by approximately 4 points, in addition to greater transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase caused by greater transition opportunities and 2nd chances.[/COLOR]
.

[3ball]

.
basically, the 80's helped their offense by crashing the glass more, but hurt their defense in transition DUE TO crashing the glass more - the two effects of higher offensive rebounds (2nd chances, worse transition D) both increase ORtg.

since offensive rebounding rates - and therefore playing style - affects the ORtg calculation, ORtg can't be compared across eras that have different playing styles.
.

[atljonesbro]