Reasons Why Difficulty of Scoring (League-Wide Ortg) is Relatively Constant Over Time

[3ball]

“All you have to do is look at the stats,” Bird says. “There’s better shooting back then, better defense now."

When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. And defenses didn't only adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.
.

[Dr.J4ever]

When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. Defenses didn't just adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.

Are you able to get inside Bird's mind? Stop re-interpreting what he said. Don't forget he also said there were no centers back then who could play on the perimeter like KG. As I said on another thread, there were no centers back then(the 80s) who blitzed on pick and rolls.

They all agreed defenses are more complex, and offenses have responded in kind. Players are also much more athletic, they said.

BTW, this whole thread is based on the wrong premise anyway. You thought defenders today COULDN'T camp in the lane for more than 3 seconds which is completely false.

My question is: how can you make the proper conclusions and theories when your understanding of the rule is flawed?

[3ball]

When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. Defenses didn't just adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.

Are you able to get inside Bird's mind?

As I said on another thread, there were no centers back then(the 80s) who blitzed on pick and rolls.

Every single word in the first post that you quoted above is 100% accurate.

And the stats agree... League-wide Ortg and points-per-possession remains stable over time as defenses adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes.

Btw, there are no bigs in today's game as mobile as David Robinson, Olajuwon, or Shawn Kemp.... Guys like Kevin Willis, Horace Grant, Alonzo Mourning, Larry Nance - you just don't remember them or weren't aware of them to begin with.

Recency bias is a powerful drug.
.

[Dr.J4ever]

Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread, and other posters commented on this fact. So you start a thread without fully understanding the new rules, make conclusions based on a false premise, and now you want to maintain your premise by adjusting your explanations of the rules and assumptions.

Offenses adjust over time when they adjust to new defensive rules that give defenders FLEXIBILITY THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. I hate repeating what I already said, and I won't. If you won't or can't understand it, it is your own loss.

I didn't bring up Garnett, btw, it was the Bird who did. Check the article. Some of those centers you mentioned were great in interior basketball, but we won't know if they were quick enough to play on the perimeter consistently like they do today with the blitzing of pick and rolls, since it was not a featured defense of that era.

You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

Because of the new rules, offenses and defenses are different from basketball in 90s or 80s. I read one writer call the differences "jarring". The style is different because of the rules. The game is even different than when Allen Iverson lead a rag tag defensive crew of 76ers to the 2001 Finals. The 76ers relied on Iverson isos and defense to go to the Finals. It wouldn't have been possible today.

I believe the game is better today and more entertaining, but I also understand people like you who like the physical style played on the perimeter that made it more difficult for small guards to drive into the lane, even if there was no zones back then.

However, it is undeniable, and it was the intent of the rules, that there are less isos and post up isos today than there ever were. FPLii posted an article from the league office about the discussions that were going on at the time.

Many opposed the new rules, including Pat Riley, who believed it would choke off drives and and make teams rely on jumpers. It would make the game boring, they said. The NBA disagreed, obviously, and teams have adjusted to the new realities, and voila, we have the Spurs who have used as much passing and team play displayed in the Finals in decades.

Even Miami had to "overhaul" their entire offense after their loss to the Mavs, who played a lot of zone, as per the article of Zach Lowe on Grantland in 2013.

So yes, in this sense you are right, teams do adjust, but they don't always use the same old methods to score as they did in the 90s or 80s. It just wouldn't be as efficient today.

Not saying Jordan would suddenly be a scrub, but even Jordan would have adjusted his game to soothe the new rules. Along with Lebron, he would still dominate, albeit with a tweak on his game.

[3ball]

Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread

You are the one that misunderstands the rules - I explained the rules to you and answered every one of your issues in the first post on the previous page..

You said yourself that players in previous eras were allowed to do whatever they wanted as long as they APPEARED to be guarding someone...

This allows them to camp in the paint as long as they want while being FURTHER than armslength from an offensive player, which is a big advantage over today's players that must be within armslength...

Also, the more important point was that only 5 threes were taken in 1988 compared to 22 per game today, so players weren't occupying the 3-point line anyway and were instead occupying the two-point areas (paint and mid-range), so this allowed defenders to be within armslength a very high proportion of the time anyway.

Finally, the stats prove what I'm saying - the stats prove that it isn't any harder to score nowadays - defenses adjust over time to playing style and regulatory changes... this is why league-wide offensive rating remains stable over time, the title of this thread.

[3ball]

You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

See, this is where you don't realize that the spacing in today's game makes it so a much higher proportion of shots attempted are open shots, such as the three-pointers you mention.

This makes players better at hitting 3's, but worse at scoring ON defenders, because that isn't as necessary in today's game.

So wing players turn into 3-and-D players with no post game or unique individual scoring ability to score ON defenders, like players of previous eras could do - i.e. unique offensive players like Bob Mcadoo, Kareem, Bernard King, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, George Gervin, Bird or Magic.

Bigs don't have offenses run through them anymore where they catch the ball and create for others - instead, they just make open dunks off the dribble-creation and screen-roll action of the PG.

So while players have increased some skills, they have declined in other areas... like i said, it all evens out, which is why league-wide Ortg remains stable over time.

[DonDadda59]

Why do people continuously post bullshit and think they won't get called out on it?

Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread, and other posters commented on this fact. So you start a thread without fully understanding the new rules, make conclusions based on a false premise, and now you want to maintain your premise by adjusting your explanations of the rules and assumptions.

Offenses adjust over time when they adjust to new defensive rules that give defenders FLEXIBILITY THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. I hate repeating what I already said, and I won't. If you won't or can't understand it, it is your own loss.

I didn't bring up Garnett, btw, it was the Bird who did. Check the article. Some of those centers you mentioned were great in interior basketball, but we won't know if they were quick enough to play on the perimeter consistently like they do today with the blitzing of pick and rolls, since it was not a featured defense of that era.

Name a team/combo today that ran more pick and rolls than Stockton/Malone in Utah.

And speaking of defensive versatility- Hakeem Olajuwon at the height of his powers was getting 3-4 blocks and 2-3 steals per game. He's the all time blocks leader and is #8 all time in steals (Karl Malone is 11th, Garnett is 18th). He's the only non guard/small forward in the top 10. And you can't name a player in the league today who is as defensively versatile as Dennis Rodman.

You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

Because of the new rules, offenses and defenses are different from basketball in 90s or 80s. I read one writer call the differences "jarring". The style is different because of the rules. The game is even different than when Allen Iverson lead a rag tag defensive crew of 76ers to the 2001 Finals. The 76ers relied on Iverson isos and defense to go to the Finals. [COLOR="Red"]It wouldn't have been possible today.[/COLOR]

Lebron James 2007.

I believe the game is better today and more entertaining, but I also understand people like you who like the physical style played on the perimeter that made it more difficult for small guards to drive into the lane, even if there was no zones back then.

False.

However, it is undeniable, and it was the intent of the rules, that there are less isos and post up isos today than there ever were. FPLii posted an article from the league office about the discussions that were going on at the time.

The league in the 90s, even when the pace was equal to or lower than today, averaged more assists per game than now. Kobe and Iverson were taking 25-27 FGA on teams that played 90-92 paces right after the rule changes. Guys like Durant and Carmelo are iso artists who take upwards of 22 shots per game.

Many opposed the new rules, including Pat Riley, who believed it would choke off drives and and make teams rely on jumpers. It would make the game boring, they said. The NBA disagreed, obviously, and teams have adjusted to the new realities, and voila, we have the Spurs who have used as much passing and team play displayed in the Finals in decades.

Obviously the NBA was right:

[INDENT]Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. [COLOR="Red"]Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter.[/COLOR] When NBA players get higher quality shots

[Dr.J4ever]

Why do people continuously post bullshit and think they won't get called out on it?



Name a team/combo today that ran more pick and rolls than Stockton/Malone in Utah.

And speaking of defensive versatility- Hakeem Olajuwon at the height of his powers was getting 3-4 blocks and 2-3 steals per game. He's the all time blocks leader and is #8 all time in steals (Karl Malone is 11th, Garnett is 18th). He's the only non guard/small forward in the top 10. And you can't name a player in the league today who is as defensively versatile as Dennis Rodman.



Lebron James 2007.



False.



The league in the 90s, even when the pace was equal to or lower than today, averaged more assists per game than now. Kobe and Iverson were taking 25-27 FGA on teams that played 90-92 paces right after the rule changes. Guys like Durant and Carmelo are iso artists who take upwards of 22 shots per game.



Obviously the NBA was right:

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. [COLOR="Red"]Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter.[/COLOR] When NBA players get higher quality shots — having more time to shoot — they tend to make more of them.

Stu Jackson: It doesn’t. [COLOR="Red"]With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.[/COLOR] Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

Straight from the Horse's mouth



The league average for 'zone' defensive plays in the NBA is around 3%, no team plays more than 10% of D sets in zone (and those who do are usually bottom of the barrel defenses). NBA teams have shot better against the 'zone' than man, which makes sense when you really think about it. How are amateur defensive schemes going to impede the best professionals on the planet?



Be specific... in what way would Jordan have to adjust his game?

Nope. The Stu Jackson interview for NBA.com in 2009 is an NBA marketing piece designed to kinda say, "see look at the game it's just fine despite what the critics said about how offense will be impeded in 2001 before it was instituted"... Besides I can't find the piece of FPLIII, once I get it, I will post it here. Hopefully, FPLIII sees this and posts it before me. I will answer your other points at another time since I am gonna be busy now.

Here's a piece from the NY times about the actual conversation and debate BEFORE the rule was started in 2002. Note the critics led by Riley who said scoring might go down to the 70s level(in points, not decades).

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/12/sp...liminated.html

This is important so we can see what the mentality was and conversation about the new rules, and then compare it to what Bird, Ainge and Scott are saying now.

Here's an excerpt:

The changes are meant to encourage more movement and passing, while discouraging teams from steering offenses toward isolation plays, in which a majority of a team's players stand idle on the weakside to draw defenders away from the ball. That trend has been a factor in the decrease in scoring over the past decade.

''I think it's a huge mistake,'' Miami Coach Pat Riley said last week. ''There's not going to be anybody able to drive. With these rules, you're going to be back in the 70's in scoring. You can't force pace.''

''It sounds very bold, and it is,'' acknowledged Jerry Colangelo, the Phoenix Suns owner and chairman of the committee that submitted the recommendation two weeks ago. ''But at this point, it's better than a tweak. The fact is, we don't have any fluidity in our game right now. There is less ball movement and less player movement than there's ever been.''

Most opponents of the rule changes agree with Colangelo that the game has become too stagnant and that the choreography of teamwork has all but disappeared from many arenas. But they don't feel such a dramatic change will suddenly turn the game into the free-flowing style that will raise television ratings and increase fan interest.

''It would change the sport,'' said Tomjanovich, one of the most vocal opponents of the zone defense. ''We should create a situation where great players get a chance to excel. Zones neutralize great athletic ability. People want to see guys who can soar to the basket.''

Calling the committee's proposed changes a ''knee-jerk reaction to complaints about the pace of the game,'' Riley added: ''Fans like to see Vince Carter play one on one outside. That stuff is going to be history. Isolation basketball has been part of the game ever since I've been in it.''

Other coaches like George Karl and Phil Jackson -- weary of the increased focus on defense and the plodding halfcourt sets that have led to the game's stagnation -- are fine with the changes.

''I'm totally O.K. with the zone,'' Jackson said. ''It's going to hurt Shaq, but it's still part of what the game has to be.''

Of more than two dozen players interviewed, an overwhelming number were against zone defenses.

''It will mess the game up,'' Portland point guard Damon Stoudamire said. ''I'm not a big advocate of zone defense. That's the reason why players leave college. You're going to put a box-and-one on Vince Carter? Fans are paying money to see these games. You can't just take away what has essentially made the N.B.A. what it is: one-on-one basketball.''

If the debate has polarized some in the coaching community, it has created a wedge between coaches and ownership.

Miami, Houston, the Knicks and San Antonio were among the dissenters two weeks ago when Colangelo took an unofficial tabulation. The opponents of the rule changes have privately accused Commissioner David Stern of making sure Colangelo appointed a committee that would be open to radical rule changes.

Beyond Colangelo, one of the league's senior owners who has had a longstanding relationship with Stern, others on the committee include Stu Jackson, the league's senior vice president for basketball operations, and Bob Lanier, special assistant to the commissioner. The former coaches Dick Motta and Jack Ramsay were also on the panel.

''You don't ask Lenny Wilkens, Pat Riley, Rudy Tomjanovich or Larry Brown to be on that committee?'' said one veteran coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ''Most of the people on that committee have worked for the league in some capacity. What they've done is pitted the coaches against the owners.''

Colangelo defended the committee and dismissed the notion that the changes were railroaded through.

''Many of the people in favor of these changes have been in the game over the last three decades,'' he said. ''We can relate to how everything has evolved. I understand their concerns, but the fact is, many of the coaches in the league are entrenched. One of my arguments is: Each franchise now averages about six assistants per team. Let's put them to work.''

That is one of the major concerns among opponents: that coaches will have more control of the game.

''People will be coming up with all kinds of crazy defenses,'' Tomjanovich said. ''I want what's best for the N.B.A. I'm not sure these rule changes are.''

He added: ''This shouldn't be us against them. But I would think we could come up with rules to encourage exploiting our assets instead of stifling them. I'm not one of these guys who think the players of today aren't what they used to be. There are guys now who do things we never dreamed about. I think we've been so desensitized by all the amazing plays that we forgot that that's what people come to see.''

Stern appointed Colangelo nearly two months ago to choose a committee to discuss possible changes. The committee watched old footage of N.B.A. games spliced in with new footage. One of the offensive sets was that of the Rockets, in which a player like Steve Francis was isolated on one side of the floor against his defender, while four other players emptied out on the other side of the floor.

''A typical Houston set is giving one guy the ball and sending everyone else away from him,'' Colangelo said. ''Hardly anyone else is even involved. It's not the lack of ball movement. People wonder whatever happened to the lost art of offensive rebounding. Players are no longer in position to rebound because of some of these sets.''

He added: ''Everyone knows we have a problem, but no one has come up with anything better. If this thing doesn't pass, then that's it. We're not going back again.''

Charlotte forward Jamal Mashburn said: ''I don't see how that's going to promote scoring. You look at teams like the Lakers and the Heat. Shaq and Alonzo will be in the lane. Imagine playing against David Robinson and Tim Duncan, standing there in the middle in a 3-2 zone.''

Tomjanovich said: ''I respect the passion and energy of everybody involved in this, no matter what's been said. These rules will change the game. Unfortunately, I think it will slow it down.''

[DonDadda59]

Nope. The Stu Jackson interview for NBA.com in 2009 is an NBA marketing piece designed to kinda say, "see look at the game it's just fine despite what the critics said about how offense will be impeded in 2001 before it was instituted"...

Right, and he was correct while the opponents of the rule changes who thought the NBA would turn into the NCAA with low scoring games and handcuffed stars were clearly dead wrong. He was just reiterating this by pointing out how much easier it had become for perimeter players to penetrate the paint on drives and get open shots. Perimeter scoring exploded immediately after hand checking was eliminated, it wasn't even a gradual process (look at the difference between scoring leaders in '04-'05 to '05-'06) and as I pointed out in another thread, shooting efficiency has been at an all time high and keeps climbing.

So the NBA wanted to make scoring easier and to handicap defenses and they got their wish. Simple as that.

[fpliii]

Dr.J4ever - Which article are you looking for?

[Lebronxrings]

This thread was beta as phuck.

[Dr.J4ever]

Right, and he was correct while the opponents of the rule changes who thought the NBA would turn into the NCAA with low scoring games and handcuffed stars were clearly dead wrong. He was just reiterating this by pointing out how much easier it had become for perimeter players to penetrate the paint on drives and get open shots. Perimeter scoring exploded immediately after hand checking was eliminated, it wasn't even a gradual process (look at the difference between scoring leaders in '04-'05 to '05-'06) and as I pointed out in another thread, shooting efficiency has been at an all time high and keeps climbing.

So the NBA wanted to make scoring easier and to handicap defenses and they got their wish. Simple as that.

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

Assists aren't always a good way of determining team ball. Iverson regularly was among leaders in APG, but no one would mistake him for being a team chemistry type of guard, and I'm a big 76er fan. Along with assists, you must watch the games and check for "hockey assist" or passes that lead to assist passes. Now that's a team ball statistic if anyone ever recorded it.

[DatAsh]

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

Assists aren't always a good way of determining team ball. Iverson regularly was among leaders in APG, but no one would mistake him for being a team chemistry type of guard, and I'm a big 76er fan. Along with assists, you must watch the games and check for "hockey assist" or passes that lead to assist passes. Now that's a team ball statistic if anyone ever recorded it.

Don't know if I agree with there being more iso's back then. Iso's were certainly more frequent in the early 2000's than they are now, but I still see more isolation today than I did in the 80s.

[3ball]

the league can almost change the sport by changing the rules.. players and teams always adjust though.

[3ball]

Don't know if I agree with there being more iso's back then. Iso's were certainly more frequent in the early 2000's than they are now, but I still see more isolation today than I did in the 80s.

the number of dribble penetration isos are close to the same as previous eras, I'm guessing...

But the mid-range iso where you give it to a Bernard King on the elbow and he faces up and goes to work, or the post iso - these isos are less frequent imo... infact, at times they seem almost completely gone from the game...

it's all screen-roll, drive and kick... Those are the offenses that are effective at taking advantage of the spacing, no-hand-check rules, and defensive 3 seconds to get open shots... and the increased viability of the drive-and-kick after the rule changes makes isos and post-ups not as worth it anymore.