90's Isolation Game / Physical Defense v.s. 2000's Strategic Defense / No Physicality

[kaiiu]

[Micku]

Legit discussion here. Since I've seen various posters bring it up. Indian Guy, and a few others making the claim post 2000+ defenses are vastly superior. Which era was better defensively? Make a case and tell me why. I want good natured discussion here.

90's NBA

- Less strategy / less complex coverages
- Slightly lesser athletes on average
- Smarter players
- More physicality
- No zone makes it easier for dynamic scorers
- Iso ball encouraged

2000's NBA

- Greater defense strategy / complex schemes
- Slightly better athletes on average
- Dumber players
- Less physicality
- Psuedo / rotating zones make ISO ball difficult
- Team ball is encouraged

The early 90s had better man to man defense because it was easier to keep up with the man. Plus, it makes it harder to drive with more big men protecting the paint. The rules allowed to them do so. With that said, some teams get away with zone like how some teams get away with handchecking today.


The 00s have better potential help defense because of zone and everything. The 00s also makes it harder for post players to operate and encourage a more perimeter game. The defense and offense is more complex, and team play is encourage, but they don't execute it as well as teams in the early 90s.


But there are two parts of the 90s and two parts of the 00s.

The mid 90s eliminated hand checking and shorten the 3pt line to increase scoring. Ironically enough, teams were starting to slow down the pacing and follow the Bad Boys Pistons style of game. They kind'a revolutionize the game.

The 00s also eliminated hand checking completely and allowed perimeter players to shine more. They also put zone to increase team play and to stop Shaq for dominating so much. Before then, there were some hand-checking around the paint area I believe, and zone came into play in 03-04.


But there other factors too. The early 90s wasn't too good at spacing in comparison to now. The 00s have too many plays and take too long to get their shot off at times.


Plus, they were different eras and different belief factors. The early 90s take less time on the shot clock, and they operate inside then out. Sometimes they scared to shoot the ball though, but they were better than the 80s. While the 00s take their time on their shots, but they generally take bad shots in comparison to the 90s, but they are not afraid to shoot it.


In summary:

The 90s was better at protecting the rim. Better man to man defense.

The 00s is better at defending the post. Better help defense.

But they are two different style of games. They don't play the same. So it's difficult to compare since the rules changed and the philosophy is different.

[rodman91]

Before it turns out to be another Kobe worshipping thread...oh too late!

90's any day.Game was much more tougher.Players were tougher.There were much better big men in inside.Getting into lane wasn't as easy as today.Guys like Tony Parker would end up as crippled in 90's instead of being most active players in painted area.

90's Defensive Big Men: Hakeem,Robinson,Ewing,Mourning,Mutombo,Shaq,Kemp,R odman,Oakley,Malone
00's Defensive Big Men:
Wallace,Duncan,Garnett,Shaq,Rasheed

90's Defensive Wing players /guards:
Pippen,Payton,Jordan,Drexler,Dumars,Rodman,Starks, Stockton,Blaylock,Ron Harper
00's Defensive Wing players / guards
Bowen,Artest,Kobe,Kidd,Doug Christie

90's Tough/Dirty men :
Rodman,Malone,Mutombo,Mason,Starks,Xavier McDaniel,Barkley,Laimbeer & rest of Bad boys,Stockton,Mutombo
00's Tough/Dirty men:
Artest,Rasheed,Kenyon Martin,Bowen..

I'm sure i forgot a lot of names both 90's and 00's but as players on defense 90's win easily.

Zone is quite overrated because americans never been able to use it like in Europe.It's like a fake version of zone. Most of the time still man to man is defensive scheme.Double teaming was still in 90's.Also no hand checking made it a lot of easier for wing players in 00's

90's wins.

[Micku]

Zone is quite overrated because americans never been able to use it like in Europe.It's like a fake version of zone. Most of the time still man to man is defensive scheme.Double teaming was still in 90's.Also no hand checking made it a lot of easier for wing players in 00's

90's wins.

The USA 00s don't really use zone much. Hardly at all. But that's not main significance. Zone allows defenders to float around. The 90s was not allowed to do that. The 90s could sag off the players, and the 90s did have good help defense, but they were not able to float around like the 00s can. But some teams use zone to confuse the offense and disrupt their plays. They would have to go to plan b and pass the ball around.

With that said, it's rare that the 00s do that, but it allows better help defense. Smart teams in the 90s used to cheat. They used to zone up to stop the teams from getting momentum in the offense. The refs would see the zone and stop the game for a bit, which will disrupt the momentum.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think defenses kept getting tougher from the late 80's until peaking in 2004 causing the NBA to make an effort to change this.

The start of it in my opinion was the Pistons, they were the first team to win playing more of a halfcourt defensive-oriented style and other teams to started to follow this, rather than the rip the ball out of the net after a made basket and try to score as fast as you can at the other end. Then the Pat Riley coached Knicks were successful and took defense to a new level and others followed such as Mike Fratello's teams and Pat Riley's Heat when he went there. Defense had been getting progressively tougher, but after the '94, this was stopped shortly with the 3 years with the shortened 3 point line, but the start of the toughest defensive era was the first year with the normal line again in '98. As other teams started to have success with a slow, defensive-oriented style such as San Antonio this was reinforced. You saw very few fastbreak teams at all during the '98-'04 era,

Post-'04, it slowly regressed a little compared to '98-'04 with the rule changes, and I believe that the success of the Suns made more teams adopt a fast-paced offense first style most notably Denver and Golden State as well as less successful teams like New York and Indiana.

The strategies continue to advance, and you see a hell of a lot less open mid-range shots and lay ups than the run and gun days.

With more teams emphasizing defense and a slower pace meaning more set defenses you had to score against, it was definitely tower from '98-'04 than any other era, imo. Keep in mind, that we certainly had scorers with athletic ability and skill sets to compete with the best them, yet between Jordan's season in '96 when he averaged a little over 30 ppg until Iverson's season in 2001 when he averaged a little over 31 ppg, no player during that time averaged a full 30, and Iverson's season came with almost 26 shot attempts per game. 2003 was the first time since '96 that anyone averaged a full 30 on at least 45% shooting or 55% TS%(T-Mac and Kobe did it that year) and in 2004, T-Mac was the only player to average over 25 ppg, and led the league with 28 ppg on poor efficiency.

I get the sense that based on last season, the run and gun style's popularity might be going away again. We've still seen teams have a lot of success with great defenses such as the recent Celtics teams and Chicago last year.

[Calabis]

Sorry but I have to post this again from a old thread....its in black and white....why people defend this era of defense is beyond me, hell the guy who helped change the rules state how its easier for good, athletic wing players, how its easier to get off shots...why is this ignored??? How many times does it need to be posted??

Here are the reasons for the drop, not all this mythical garbage about great defenses from 98-04 and these so called great zones of today

Despite the dip in 3-point percentage, overall scoring is up this season. The league is scoring more than 200 points per game (200.01 to be precise) for the first time since the 1994-95 season. But that's more about pace than offensive efficiency. At 95.2 possessions per team per 48 minutes, this is the fastest pace the league has played at in the last 10 years. Efficiency is actually down from last season as the league is scoring 104.2 points per 100 possessions, down from 105.4 in 2008-09.

Along with the dip in 3-point percentage, the mid-range game continues to fade. The percentage of mid-range points (points not scored at the line, in the paint or beyond the arc) is down to just 20.6 percent. Points in the paint are higher than they've been since the league started tracking them in the 2000-01 season. Those baskets account for 41.7 percent of all points this season, up from 40.1 percent a year ago.(So much for this zone myth of keeping perimeter guys out of the lanes)

Scoring from the mid-range area isn't a trend that good offensive teams have. Chicago scores 26.9 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 27th offensively. Detroit scores 26.6 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 26th offensively. Dallas (25.2 percent, 10th) and Portland (24.9 percent, seventh) go against the grain, thanks to the shooting of Dirk Nowitzki and LaMarcus Aldridge.



http://www.82games.com/scorers.htm

Article from 2004: We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

1984-85 2003-04 Change
Points per game 110.8 93.4 -17.4
Possessions/game 104.8 92.0 -12.8
Points/possession 1.05 1.01 -.04
Field-goal pct. 49.1 43.9 -5.2
Free-throw pct. 76.4 75.2 -1.2
3-point pct. 28.1 34.7 +6.6
Off. Rebound pct. 32.9 28.7 -4.2
FTA/FGA .330 .303 -.207
Turnovers/possession .169 .154 -.015


Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

[Calabis]

continued............

Article from 2001: In addition, the typical player nowadays generally dedicates more time to weight training, perhaps to the detriment of additional shooting drills. And never since the NBA added its 3-point line back in 1979-'80 have treys been hoisted more frequently by more pedestrian shooters, driving down shooting accuracy league-wide. Perhaps the best evidence of this is that Boston's Antoine Walker -- a post-up forward to be sure -- has attempted more three-pointers this season (196) than all but two players in the entire league.

Also factoring into the decline in offensive output is the increase in college underclassmen -- many of whom arrive at the "Next Level" ill-prepared with solid basketball foundations. In the five NBA Drafts between 1986 and 1990, 58 underclassmen declared themselves eligible. In the NBA Drafts from 1996 to 2000, the number rose to 153. Perhaps not coincidentally, three of the four-worst league-wide shooting seasons in history occurred in this span.

From a Laker Blog: The NBA will never admit to it publically, but zone defense was primarily legalized to contain Shaquille O'neal. Shaquille simply could not be guarded by one man, it was just not possible. It's a lopsided mismatch regardless of whoever is guarding him. Add Kobe Bryant to that team and it is plain to see that the league would be dominated for a long time to come. Therefor, in order to even out the playing field, the league legalized zone defense.

Yet since 2004 Shaq shot 60+ percent 5 times, 59 2 times, prior to this his high was .599 one time(Zone didn't stop Shaq's efficiency)

Zone Myth...as of Dec 22, 2005

Here's a look at the NBA's top five in scoring points in the paint (through Tuesday):

1. Tony Parker, Spurs 328
2. Tim Duncan, Spurs 322
3. Dwyane Wade, Heat 316
4. LeBron James, Cavs 304
5. Allen Iverson, Sixers 298

Source: Elias Sports Bureau


The other myth of taller and longer players

SURVEY OF HEIGHT, WEIGHT, AGE AND EXPERIENCE SINCE 1985

Team Height Weight Age Exp.

1985-86 6’ 7.36” 214.40 26.72 3.85

1986-87 6’ 7.62” 215.46 26.53 3.83

1987-88 6’ 7.38” 215.61 27.01 4.10

1988-89 6’ 7.31” 215.58 26.92 4.01

1989-90 6’ 7.09” 214.82 26.79 3.95

1990-91 6’ 7.16” 216.16 27.01 4.08

1991-92 6’ 7.04” 216.47 27.09 4.20

1992-93 6’ 7.06” 219.86 27.19 4.15

1993-94 6’ 7.34” 221.68 27.26 4.28

1994-95 6’ 7.19” 221.50 27.43 4.56

1995-96 6’ 7.27” 223.66 27.56 4.42

1996-97 6’ 7.20” 223.67 27.74 4.63

1997-98 6’ 7.11” 222.95 27.82 4.82

1998-99 6’ 7.10” 222.85 27.82 4.81

1999-00 6’ 7.26” 224.68 27.95 5.20

2000-01 6’ 7.03” 223.47 27.75 5.01

2001-02 6’ 7.26” 224.05 27.47 4.82

2002-03 6’ 7.40” 225.40 27.34 4.73

2003-04 6' 7.31" 225.45 27.22 4.76

2004-05 6' 7.26" 224.29 27.03 4.61

2004 Rule Changes

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

SJ: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. 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. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

SJ: It doesn't. 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. 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.

You also remember when NBA rules expert Rod Thorn said this after the handchecking rule was changed and the defensive 3 second rule:"It's more difficult now to guard the quick wing player who can handle the ball," Thorn said of the change. "I think it helps skilled players over someone who just has strength or toughness. What the NBA is trying to do is promote unimpeded movement for dribblers or cutters."

.....Hmmm so somehow they made it tougher to play defense, but its much harder to shoot today

[Calabis]

Zone doesn't keep anyone out of lanes

In 2010

Kobe scored:

460 pts on layups/dunks
572 pts inside 10 ft
862 pts inside of 15 ft
439 pts from the FT line.

Total: 669 pts outside 15+ ft < 1,301 pts INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line.

That means 66% (2/3 of his pts) came inside of 15 ft & the FT line LOL!!

Carmelo (the alleged pure jump shooter) scored:

652 pts on dunks/layups
736 pts inside 10 ft
864 pts inside 15 ft
508 pts from the FT line
571 pts outside 15 f

Total: 1,372 of his total pts came inside 15 ft or the FT line (71% of his total pts)

D-Wade (who doesn't even have MJ's post game or jumper) scored:

762 pts on dunks/layups
894 pts inside 10 ft
996 pts inside 15 ft
534 pts from the FT line
515 pts from outside 15 ft

Total: 1,530 of his total pts came inside 15 ft or from the FT line (75% of his total pts)

I mean it's ridiculous how these new rules have made SO EASY for these guys to score inside..Tony Parker (a 6'1 pt guard) has led the league in pts scored in the paint TWICE!!

Tyriq Evans (a rookie in 2010) scored 714 pts on layups/dunks (84% of his total pts)

Durant scored 602 pts on layups/dunks (70% of his total pts)

LBJ scored 754 pts on layups/dunks (68% of his total pts)

Brandon Roy scored 346 pts on layups/dunks (63% of his total pts)

Joe Johnson scored 324 pts on layups/dunks (42% of his total pts)

I mean the list of wing players scoring big time pts INSIDE 10-15 ft in tody's game is endless...

Darren Williams scored:

392 pts on layups/dunks
486 pts inside 10 ft
528 inside 15 ft
335 pts from the FT line
556 pts from outside 15 ft

Total: 863 of his total pts came INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line (61% of his total pts)

Dirk Nowitzki (not a great athlete & terrible foot speed) scored:

328 pts on layups/dunks
416 pts inside 10 ft
718 pts inside 15 ft
536 pts from the FT line
773 pts outside 15 ft

Total: 1,254 of his total pts came INSIDE 15 ft or the FT line (62% of his total pts)

also after 2004 rulechanges: the leagues top 10 scorers scored 23% more points than the year before and saw a 4% field goal increase

[andgar923]

The notion that today's defense is better is simply absurd.

It's boggles my mind that people actually believe that any defense past the mid 90s is actually superior than that of the late 80s and early 90s.

The f*ckin rules were literally changed to make it easier for perimeter players, it is a f*ckin FACT!!! why people don't acknowledge this is simply beyond retarded.

The main reason why any statistical data shows why shooting percentages have dropped, is directly a result of 3pt shot attempts and more isolation ball than anything else, not due to defensive schemes or anything of the sort. Just poor ball iq and execution. This along with the decline of the big man.

[Calabis]

As much as these young guys act like handchecking is some myth that was useless on defense

article

Joe Johnson's response when asked about the handchecking rules in the summer of 2010: "It benefits me," said Joe Johnson, one of three players (Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford are the others) on the Hawks' roster who have averaged 20 or more points in a season. "It definitely changes the game because it gives every guy that extra step. "If we could hand check now, the game would be totally different," Johnson said. "If they couldn't hand check back in the day, there are some guys that would have been even better than they were. It would have been nuts for some of the big-time scorers and perimeter players from the 1980s and 1990s. Can you imagine what [Michael] Jordan would have done in a league where you couldn't hand check."

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.

Hall of Famer Rick Barry, a keen observer of the game, said he would love to see players of the past getting to attack the basket under the new officiating. "They'd score a lot more," he said.

Tex Winter said. "Players today can get to the basket individually much easier."

Asked if he could defend Jordan under today's interpretation of the rules, Dumars first laughed, "It would have been virtually impossible to defend Michael Jordan based on the way the game's being called right now."

"The game has changed big-time,” said Dallas point guard Jason Kidd . "When I came in you could hand check and hold a little bit. You could definitely be more physical with the ball-handler


Funny how so many people still involved in today's game keep mentioning handchecking...also I thought a very good example of past era defense was Game 1 of Bulls/Heat series....Heat complained of all the body bumping and handchecking the Bulls got away with against Lebron and Wade...they didn't fair so well offensively, they did when the refs decided to take that physical defensive play away from the Bulls perimeter defenders.

Last but not least, 6 DPOY Perimeter Defenders(2 of them winning it twice), Legit bigs inside the paint.

[catch24]

Not sure what the 2010 rules/points allowed, etc., have to do with team-defense being at its peak from '99-04?

[andgar923]

As much as these young guys act like handchecking is some myth that was useless on defense

Joe Johnson's response when asked about the handchecking rules in the summer of 2010: "It benefits me," said Joe Johnson, one of three players (Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford are the others) on the Hawks' roster who have averaged 20 or more points in a season. "It definitely changes the game because it gives every guy that extra step. "If we could hand check now, the game would be totally different," Johnson said. "If they couldn't hand check back in the day, there are some guys that would have been even better than they were. It would have been nuts for some of the big-time scorers and perimeter players from the 1980s and 1990s. Can you imagine what [Michael] Jordan would have done in a league where you couldn't hand check."

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.

Hall of Famer Rick Barry, a keen observer of the game, said he would love to see players of the past getting to attack the basket under the new officiating. "They'd score a lot more," he said.

Tex Winter said. "Players today can get to the basket individually much easier."

Asked if he could defend Jordan under today's interpretation of the rules, Dumars first laughed, "It would have been virtually impossible to defend Michael Jordan based on the way the game's being called right now."

Funny how so many people still involved in today's game keep mentioning handchecking...also I thought a very good example of past era defense was Game 1 of Bulls/Heat series....Heat complained of all the body bumping and handchecking the Bulls got away with against Lebron and Wade...they didn't fair so well offensively, they did when the refs decided to take that physical defensive play away from the Bulls perimeter defenders.

Last but not least, 6 DPOY Perimeter Defenders(2 of them winning it twice), Legit bigs inside the paint.

Aside from that, anybody that's ever played ball will tell you that physical defense is harder to play against.

Those that don't wanna acknowledge this obviously haven't played ball much, if at all.

[Calabis]

Not sure what the 2010 rules/points allowed, etc., have to do with team-defense being at its peak from '99-04?

I assume this was for me...last time I checked the posters question was 2000's style defense, 2010 is in the 2000's right?

[catch24]

I assume this was for me...last time I checked the posters question was 2000's style defense, 2010 is in the 2000's right?

Right, but everyone knows that post 2005 the league obliterated their rules to help scoring. In general, the league today has some of the worst defenses exhibited since the 80's (more specifically Western Conference teams from the 80's).

The reasons above are why most taking the 2000s defense had to quantify the years this decade, i.e. '01-04.

[KenneBell]

Zone doesn't keep anyone out of lanes

Neither does man judging by the statistics of elite perimeter players of the 80's and 90's.

I think the constant revisions by the NBA since '05 have gotten things down to a reasonable balance.

Think about how many 50+ point games we've seen in the past three years or even 30+ ppg scorers. They're almost non existent and I don't think it's from lack of talent.

Basketball from '01-'04 was tough to watch for a variety of reasons and one of them was that defenses were very, very good.