Interesting article on Illegal Defense back in 2001

[Im Still Ballin]

Changes will result in better team game
By Dr. Jack Ramsay
Special to ESPN.com
Editor’s Note: ESPN NBA analyst, Hall of Fame coach, and spooky white octogenarian Dr. Jack Ramsay was on an 11-member committee that met March 20-21 in Phoenix and endorsed ways to improve the game, including the use of zone defenses. Also on the committee, headed by Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, were Theo Ratliff, Jerry West, Rod Thorn, Dyan Cannon, Stu Jackson, Benny the Bull, and the corpse of Bob Cousy.

The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered. There were too many isolations on one or two offensive players while the others stood on the opposite side of the floor pointing out to officials what they perceived to be illegal defenses of the opponent.

Basketball is supposed to be a five-man game; isolations make for an inactive and unattractive product that doesn’t involve all five players. Watching Vince Carter dominate a game doesn’t give fans the opportunity to see Charles Oakley, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark, or Tracy Murray perform, and that’s a real shame.

In addition, there has always been a cloud of uncertainty among players, coaches and officials about the rules regarding illegal defense. Plus, the fans have no clue. Most don’t understand what is or isn’t legal. And anything that is difficult to understand, like law, physics, or medicine, must be no good and should be eliminated. The term “illegal defense” is gone after this season.

There are two other worthwhile changes: a defensive three-second count, in which a defender cannot be in the lane for three seconds without guarding somebody, which means an arm’s length away from an offensive player; and an eight-second count in the backcourt, instead of 10. It will speed up the game and also invite trapping defenses – trapping players to speed up the game makes perfect sense. I only hope that we can increase dunking next year by raising the basket to 20 feet.

The NBA was the only league to put a limit on the kind of defense a team could play. No other level of basketball requires a team to play its defenders in certain parts of the playing area. In the Cuban Basketball League, for example, defenders are allowed to play anywhere as long as they stay on the island – make sense to me.

So then why did the NBA prohibit zone defenses in the first place? The league banned the zone defense in January of 1947, halfway through its first year of its existence. I was coaching a game between the Pittsburgh Ironmen and the Pawtucket Fightin’ Irish at the time. Both teams used zones and the score was 13 to 9, with sharp shooting Orville McGee leading the way with 4 points. League commissioner Colonel Eli Pounds spoke with me after the contest about cutting my salary back to $22.50 for lack of attendance. He said that the league was in trouble and that he was considering changes to the game, including banning zones and allowing Negroes to play. I told the Colonel that I would be happy to take $22.50, but I’ve regretted those changes to this very day.

Most of the fears about zone defense are groundless. Great players have thrived against zones for years in the collegiate ranks and those same players will now be able to display their talents in the NBA, including Calbert Cheaney, Corliss Williamson, Ed O’Bannon, and Bobby Hurley.

The rule change will certainly not hurt anybody. A team can put two defenders on Allen Iverson and play three on the rest of the team, but why would they? There’s no way three men can guard Dikembe Mutumbo, Eric Snow, George Lynch, and Tyrone Hill – there’s too much offensive firepower there. Larry Brown will figure out a way to make it happen – he’s one of the best point guards in the league.

I was talking to Lakers coach Phil Jackson on Wednesday night, and he was worried that teams would put three defenders on Shaq under the new rules. I told him they probably would, and if Shaq stands still, he will have a problem. But if Shaq moves the ball around and his teammates are aware of what’s happening, Shaq will kill the defense. Then Phil said, “We aren’t paying Shaquille $20 million a year to pass the damn ball, you stupid, old fool!” And that was my point exactly, I think.

I have high hopes for the changes to have a positive impact on the game. It’s been a long time coming. The game should be very interesting and appealing to watch now that we’ve removed all of the crazy hoopla, wacky shenanigans, and other flim-flam that just get the young people all riled up anyway. I am very sleepy, so I will go to bed.

[Shih508]

say w/e u want but back in 2004 Iverson > Kobe. This article proves it.

When NBA wanted to change rule, they thought about Iverson and Shaq first before anyone else. They were two most dominating offensive players during that time.

[Poetry]

Changes will result in better team game
By Dr. Jack Ramsay
Special to ESPN.com
Editor’s Note: ESPN NBA analyst, Hall of Fame coach, and spooky white octogenarian Dr. Jack Ramsay was on an 11-member committee that met March 20-21 in Phoenix and endorsed ways to improve the game, including the use of zone defenses. Also on the committee, headed by Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, were Theo Ratliff, Jerry West, Rod Thorn, Dyan Cannon, Stu Jackson, Benny the Bull, and the corpse of Bob Cousy.

The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered. There were too many isolations on one or two offensive players while the others stood on the opposite side of the floor pointing out to officials what they perceived to be illegal defenses of the opponent.

Basketball is supposed to be a five-man game; isolations make for an inactive and unattractive product that doesn’t involve all five players. Watching Vince Carter dominate a game doesn’t give fans the opportunity to see Charles Oakley, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark, or Tracy Murray perform, and that’s a real shame.

In addition, there has always been a cloud of uncertainty among players, coaches and officials about the rules regarding illegal defense. Plus, the fans have no clue. Most don’t understand what is or isn’t legal. And anything that is difficult to understand, like law, physics, or medicine, must be no good and should be eliminated. The term “illegal defense” is gone after this season.

There are two other worthwhile changes: a defensive three-second count, in which a defender cannot be in the lane for three seconds without guarding somebody, which means an arm’s length away from an offensive player; and an eight-second count in the backcourt, instead of 10. It will speed up the game and also invite trapping defenses – trapping players to speed up the game makes perfect sense. I only hope that we can increase dunking next year by raising the basket to 20 feet.

The NBA was the only league to put a limit on the kind of defense a team could play. No other level of basketball requires a team to play its defenders in certain parts of the playing area. In the Cuban Basketball League, for example, defenders are allowed to play anywhere as long as they stay on the island – make sense to me.

So then why did the NBA prohibit zone defenses in the first place? The league banned the zone defense in January of 1947, halfway through its first year of its existence. I was coaching a game between the Pittsburgh Ironmen and the Pawtucket Fightin’ Irish at the time. Both teams used zones and the score was 13 to 9, with sharp shooting Orville McGee leading the way with 4 points. League commissioner Colonel Eli Pounds spoke with me after the contest about cutting my salary back to $22.50 for lack of attendance. He said that the league was in trouble and that he was considering changes to the game, including banning zones and allowing Negroes to play. I told the Colonel that I would be happy to take $22.50, but I’ve regretted those changes to this very day.

Most of the fears about zone defense are groundless. Great players have thrived against zones for years in the collegiate ranks and those same players will now be able to display their talents in the NBA, including Calbert Cheaney, Corliss Williamson, Ed O’Bannon, and Bobby Hurley.

The rule change will certainly not hurt anybody. A team can put two defenders on Allen Iverson and play three on the rest of the team, but why would they? There’s no way three men can guard Dikembe Mutumbo, Eric Snow, George Lynch, and Tyrone Hill – there’s too much offensive firepower there. Larry Brown will figure out a way to make it happen – he’s one of the best point guards in the league.

I was talking to Lakers coach Phil Jackson on Wednesday night, and he was worried that teams would put three defenders on Shaq under the new rules. I told him they probably would, and if Shaq stands still, he will have a problem. But if Shaq moves the ball around and his teammates are aware of what’s happening, Shaq will kill the defense. Then Phil said, “We aren’t paying Shaquille $20 million a year to pass the damn ball, you stupid, old fool!” And that was my point exactly, I think.

I have high hopes for the changes to have a positive impact on the game. It’s been a long time coming. The game should be very interesting and appealing to watch now that we’ve removed all of the crazy hoopla, wacky shenanigans, and other flim-flam that just get the young people all riled up anyway. I am very sleepy, so I will go to bed.

Did you rewrite the original article?

The one here seems to be different.

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/s/2001/0412/1171902.html

It also contains all of this:

"With no restrictions on defense next season, people assume a lot of teams will play a zone. I don't think they will because a zone can't be effective in the NBA. Teams could play a combination zone, but I don't see it working. So eventually, we will still see one-on-one matchups.

The NBA's nuts-and-bolts defense will remain man-to-man with weak-side help. Man-to-man defense will be just as intense as ever and will win. Teams that go to the playoffs won't be ones that play zone defense -- I guarantee it."

And this:

"The rule change will not help or hurt anybody. A team can put two defenders on Allen Iverson and play three on the rest of the team. If that's the case, then Philadelphia will have to find a way to run Iverson off screens so he can get the ball and go to work. Larry Brown will figure out a way to make it happen, and it won't bother Iverson.

If Shaquille O'Neal is triple-teamed, then there will be four players on two defenders. That's not good math, especially when one of the other players is Kobe Bryant."

[3ball]

Some players were initially disappointed by zones in 2001, but those same players along with every other player and coach felt the hand-check and physicality bans in 2005 were far more impactful and had turned defenses soft:

MJ said he'd score 100 points.. Kobe said the defenses were way too soft.. McGrady said today's game was for boys compared to the man's game of the 90's... and on and on and on.. There are endless quotes of how the hand-check and physicality ban made NBA defenses weaker.

Comments trashing today's post-hand-check defenses are no surprise - everyone has always agreed that it's harder to score on hand-checking, higher physicality, no-spacing, and paint-camping.

These 4 things more than offset zones, especially since zones are banned inside the paint anyway, due to the defensive 3 seconds rule that forces defenders to stay within armslength of their man at all times while inside the paint - being forced to stay within armslength of your man is the opposite of a zone (it's man-to-man - that's right, the NBA forces defenders to play man-to-man inside the paint.. the zone is only allowed OUTSIDE the paint).
.

[Poetry]

Either OP found an article that was heavily edited or he rewrote it himself. The original article basically says zone won't help anyone and man-to-man will be the dominant defense now and forever.

[Poetry]

and spooky white octogenarian Dr. Jack Ramsay

This line should have been a dead giveaway that it was rewritten

[Im Still Ballin]

Took it off clutchfans

They have forum archives going back to like the 90's

[Im Still Ballin]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=lb-badideas

The relevant bit: "Which leads me to the next bad idea. We're hearing more and more NBA stars grumbling about zone defenses. The zone is killing scoring very much like reality TV is killing brain cells. Says the zone-busted Tracy McGrady: "Basically we're settling for more jumpers than ever. It's just tough to score that way."

Note to McGrady: Maybe you guys need to learn how to shoot. That's why the United States now struggles so much in international competition: We're busy dunking. While the rest of the world is working on shooting, we can't hit the broad side of Anna Nicole Smith.

So, eliminating zones would be another bad idea. "

[Im Still Ballin]

Q: Why did you make those rule changes? What kind of affect do you think it will have on the NBA?

Jerry Colangelo: The status of the game presently, with as much isolation basketball being played and confusion over the illegal defense guidelines, and the evolution of the game led us to these changes. The changes are as dramatic as anything since the unveiling of the 24-second clock, in particular, allowing any defense to be played.

Q: Do you think the no-illegal defense rule will increase scoring? what were the other incentives behind passing that new rule?

Jerry Colangelo at 5:10pm ET
The package of rules changes over a period of time should create higher scoring. Certainly more fluidity to the game, so I'm optimistic that these changes will be positive for the NBA.

[Poetry]

Took it off clutchfans

They have forum archives going back to like the 90's

They must have altered it and left out the pieces that didn't fit their agenda.

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

I think this link is broken.

[Im Still Ballin]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=lb-badideas

[3ball]

During a 2007 L.A. Lakers pre-season broadcast, Phil Jackson was asked how he thought Michael Jordan would perform today, Phil said: "Michael would average 45 with these rules.

..

"You can't even touch a guy now," says Charlotte coach Larry Brown. "The college game is much more physical than our game. I always tease Michael [Jordan], if he played today, he'd average 50."

Question for Clyde Drexler: In the current league where there is no hand checking and no ruff play how much better would your numbers be?
Clyde Drexler: "Oh, tremendously better, from shooting percentage to points per game everything would be up, and our old teams would score a lot more points, and that is saying something because we could score a lot back then. I do think there should be an asterisk next to some of these scoring leaders, because it is much different trying to score with a forearm in your face. It is harder to score with that resistance. You had to turn your back on guys defending you back in the day with all the hand checking that was going on. For guys who penetrate these days, it's hunting season. Yes, now you can play (floating)zone(legally), but teams rarely do."

"The defensive rules, the hand checking, the ability to make contact on a guy in certain areas .... [have] all been taken away from the game. If Kobe could get 81, I think Michael could get 100 in today's game." - Scottie Pippen January 2006

Craig Hodges is the Lakers shooting coach, get a look at what he said:
Q: If you could take one player in their prime, would you take Michael Jordan or Kobe?
A: M.J., all day. There's no comparison. M.J. could score 100 points in this era. You can't hand-check now. Imagine that trying to guard M.J. It would be crazy.

[QUOTE]Asked if he could defend Jordan under today

[Sarcastic]

Are there any articles on evolution or lane shading?

[3ball]

Are there any articles on evolution or lane shading?

not many.. and they'd be written by clueless individuals anyway

[3ball]

Are there any articles on evolution or lane shading?

Flooding Deandre to the strongside (seen above) leaves the weakside a man down and vulnerable - the ways to exploit this were standardized years ago and are routinely used by all teams.. Also, leaving the weakside a man down requires a bunch of rotations that open up the significant possibility of error.

Whereas letting Deandre paint-camp under the rim doesn't leave the weakside vulnerable - Griffin gets to stay on Love in the near-corner, while Dandre's presence under the rim provides the best opportunity to defend against penetrators from the strongside... He's closer to Mosgov this way too.

It's been long proven that a big man's presence under the rim is the best possible position for him defensively - the only reason the strong-side flood exists is BECAUSE defenders can no longer paint-camp.

This simple isolation play would be frontside flooded with help across the lane low today.

Today's defensive 3 seconds and spacing forces bigs to defend in a flood and shading-type fashion on the perimeter, instead of protecting the rim in the paint.. To execute floods and shading, bigs must come AWAY from the hoop and defend a guard off-the-dribble, as Pau is seen trying to do above.

This is a major disadvantage for the big man - essentially, today's game forces bigs to trade in their advantage of taking on smaller defenders AT the rim (previous eras paint-camping), for a disadvantage of contesting quicker players on the perimeter (today's floods and shading).

And clearly, the stats prove that today's floods and shading haven't made scoring or penetration more difficult - teams score more today than in the mid-90's and the NBA's own stats show teams score via dribble-penetration more than any other scoring method..