Id like to ask the people who dont accept that defense is worse now a question.

[Kblaze8855]

Those of us old enough have a pretty set opinion on the matter but quite a few 20 somethings are pretty set as well.

I was watching clips of some game from the early 2000s and there were comments on the apparently worse players and worse defense that such and such would exploit. These are the people who believe scores were so much lower because of a lack of offensive talent and depth. Apparently unwilling to accept the correlation between the higher pace and worse defense and role players looking better/being more productive and being a better deterrent to putting all your energy into stopping the stars....

My question to such people....

What do you think stopped the incredibly talented lineups from scoring?


Lets look at the Mavs....



Steve Nash
Finley
Dirk

NVE off the bench. A stretch 5 in Lafrentz. Offensive genius in Don Nelson coaching.

The had 7 total players shooting 37+ percent from 3 though obviously on less attempts.


The impression has often been that Nash became the real Nash in Phoenx and at this point his Dallas days are barely even brought up. Go watch his top 10s on NBA.com. They pretend he wasnt even in Dallas. Steve Nash was 28 in 2002. If you think a guy at 28-29 isnt in his prime yet.....I dont know what to tell you. He was more productive at 36 than 28....as the league had started to change. Doesnt make him better at basketball. He was doing all the Steve Nash MVP shit on the Mavs:














Same guy essentially.




For those of you who dont know much of Finley....imagine Jimmy Butler with much worse defense but a better jumper...and more prone to:







With the same 2 foot takeoff poster twice a week. Supposedly had like a 44 inch vertical. Good post game. Shot 38% for his career from 3 with years of 40% on like 5 a game. So he could shoot though he did have up and down years.



You had NVE who was about 30 and still capable of games like this where he dropped 40 off the bench:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm5YkSQnyNA






Lafrentz was a center who shot 37, 39, and 41% from 3 over a few years taking about 3.5 a game.





Dirk....was already Dirk. More mobile a little less reliant on just getting to his spots. Could attack facing up a little more. Run the floor. Essentially....he was Dirk but maybe 10% less deadly on a contested midrange but more athletic.


So....




This team that should have been an offensive juggernaut(and we thought it was)?



They scored 103 ppg.





Meanwhile a team that had talent and crazy depth was in Cali...


They had

Jwill/Bibby depending on the year
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade
Bobby Jackson(6th man of the year)

Added to that was a great group deep on the bench....

Hedo(future borderline all star...barely played)
Jim Jackson(not in prime but 45% from 3)
Damon Jones(not a very good player...but a career 39% 3 point shooter)
Gerald Wallace(future all star...couldnt get into games)



Gerald just came in for some:











Now and then and reported back to the bench till the Bobcats took him in the expansion draft because as good as they knew Wallace could be.....he wasnt one of their top 8 players they could protect.




So they had shooting, slashing, all star bigs and some of the best passing his history. The highlights you see....really arent. Its how they played all the time. This is standard Kings play:



































So....9-10 deep with offensive threats. Brilliant ball movement but guys who could score individually too if it came to that. Adleman coaching. Should be a juggernaut.


They scored even less than the Mavs. 101.7.


So mavs 103. Kings 102. Two highest scoring teams in the league most of those years.


Lowest scoring teams in the NBA last year?




Grizzlies, Cavs, and Knicks from 103-105.

Bucks and Warriors both scored 118 a game. Pelicans 115. So did the Clippers, Blazers, and Thunder. On defense 4 teams give up 117 to 119 points a night.

So....

The best we could expect from teams full of talent....playing what we considered uptempo ball relative to the time...was about 100 a night. In one of their best seasons the Kings only had 2 games with 120 points in regulation. The Bucks just had 5 games of 140 in regulation with a peak of 148. No OT...148 points.



Is it as simple as hands off defense and freedom of movement and all the ignored moving screens?


No.


The pace is up. Plenty of players try on defense but its harder to make a defensive impact with floors so spaced minimizing help and the ability to roam. There will be shitty defensive sequences in any era of course. Its not as simple as the players not being able to/willing to play D. But its harder to play team D....and it makes a lot of these guys and teams look more talented than they are.

Now....


Did the teams back then play the most optimal basketball? Thats one thing id like your opinion on.


The defense was(in the eyes of us old people) better both due to rules and the style many of those coaches wanted to play and insisted on a commitment to....but that isnt all in truth. I have thoughts but first id like to know what in the opinion of our 20 somethings kept those amazingly talented offenses in check....since many dont accept that defense was better as even a potential starting point.


Do you believe they werent as talented as we think they were?

Do you believe they didnt play the "right" way as analytics have made modern teams do?


Id say both of those teams could score a comfortable 120ppg today even without adjusting their threes up by the ratio one might expect....but I will accept your arguments otherwise which I expect to be purely analytical.




To keep this simple after way too many words to begin with....


If not defenses being harder to score on....


Why did even the super talented teams then not score very much?


Do you believe modern offenses are better by a greater margin than those defenses were better? Do any of you fully reject the premise that the defenses were better to begin with? I know some people who do. Nobody who was old enough to drive in the early 2000s. But....some people.

[PickernRoller]

.since many dont accept that defense was better as even a potential starting point.

Who the f' cares about what the new youngings think?

Everytime I hear kids say the GSW dynasty would bulldoze through the early 2000s West I completely time out on the convo...

You can't argue with that level of ignorance. Those GSW teams would be lucky to make it to the WCF.

[NBAGOAT]

01-04 shouldn’t be challenged by anyone as a tough defensive era. With an era adjustment, the mavs are a goat lvl offense. Kings aren’t even with seemingly great talent but you can question whether Webber is a great lead guy. Handchecking and no illegal defense rules is a tough combination. Pace does matter more when it comes to ppg however.

The kings and mavs obviously wanted to run but it’s hard when so many teams in the league are fine going down to 10 in the shot clock and then giving it their star. I’m oversimplifying their offenses but you get the idea. There’s some suboptimal shot selection which is the analytics part but that’s not a huge deal.

Something I think gets overlooked however even if it doesn’t seem like it with harden is whether it’s the lack on handchecking or more 3s being taken or smarter defenses is guys arent getting as many free throws, that’ll bring down the mavs and kings ppg some.

I think it’s ok to call Nash the same guy but oversimplifying to attribute it just to rules. As good as Nelson was for Nash, Dantoni was that much better especially the last year where walker was on point forward duty and Nash was a spot up guy at time.

[iamgine]

Defense is not worse. Offense is just better. The spacing nowadays is just much better than what it used to be. Everyone has multiple deadly shooters who take a lot of 3s. This opens up the court and puts the defense in a compromised position. Protecting the rim is much less valuable. Shaq would be a huge defensive liability in this era. He might not be playable at times.

[tpols]

The '03 mavs had the # 1 offense... the **** you rambling about?

[Wally450]

TL;DR, what's the question?

[sdot_thadon]

The freedom of movement rule was the nail in the coffin for a few years till teams adjust. The 3 point revolution was pretty close to being the answer to the zone revolution a few years prior. We know with hand checking and less spacing defenses were tougher overall, but I've always maintained that with all the rule changes it takes more skill to be a lockdown defender today than in the handchecking era. Also need to consider the proportion of 3s today compared to back then and how much bearing that has on ppg.

[tpols]

What the hell happened to bobby Jackson?

He was a gangster player to match the name.

[NBAGOAT]

Teams also don

[FKAri]

Defenses feel more helpless now. Morale is lower as a result. It's harder to get up for it. But when teams need to buckle down and play defense, they do it better than at any other point in NBA history. I'm probably the same age as you so you can check that BS at the door.

[Mr Feeny]

Defense is not worse. Offense is just better. The spacing nowadays is just much better than what it used to be. Everyone has multiple deadly shooters who take a lot of 3s. This opens up the court and puts the defense in a compromised position. Protecting the rim is much less valuable. Shaq would be a huge defensive liability in this era. He might not be playable at times.

How about individually speaking? Did Nash' offense improve overnight as he aged and exited his prime?
How about Michael Redd?

[Overdrive]

The '03 mavs had the # 1 offense... the **** you rambling about?

QED

[Mr Feeny]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]01-04 shouldn

[Reggie43]

Defense is much worse because of the rule changes obviously and thats how the league wants it to be. Not saying that players now are not capable of being good defenders but they are at a disadvantage on how the refs call the game.

[iamgine]

How about individually speaking? Did Nash' offense improve overnight as he aged and exited his prime?
How about Michael Redd?

Actually it did improve overnight due to the sudden new rules and the new system which provides much more spacing. Dallas took much less 3s than Phoenix.