Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 48 of 48
  1. #46
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.J4ever
    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.
    I think we agree here - the new rules in 2005 to "open up the game", as the NBA put it, improved the viability of various scoring methods so they became more viable than 1-on-1 and isolation plays, thus "discouraging" (as you say) the iso ball.

    You also say that the league made those rule changes so teams like the Spurs could emerge - I agree with this... By "opening up the game", teams have more room and freedom to operate, so the need to go 1-on-1 to score ON someone is reduced, since good passing will now find an open man a much higher proportion of the time.

    So I think we agree - the league changed the rules and "opened up the game" so that 1-on-1 would no longer be one of the better scoring options - and consequently, teams like the Spurs emerged that were great passing teams.

    Regarding the hybrid zones of recent years - maybe that is why offensive rating took a brief dip there in 2012 and 2013 as defenses got a little better at defending the floor-spacing.. there were officiating changes those years as well, like the swim through move wasn't a foul anymore.
    Last edited by 3ball; 09-01-2014 at 05:04 AM.

  2. #47
    Very good NBA starter
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8,851

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.J4ever
    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.
    The only reason Iverson and LJ made it to the finals is because the East is Weak. That shit had nothing to do with defense. Which is why they both got destroyed when they reached the finals. Also please explain to me how Mj would have to change up his game for today. The same Mj that played in various offenses and all different types of pace. Also he played in the Triangle. The offense that won the most modern championship to date since the merger. The 1992 Bulls averaged 27 asts. Yep that Iso more thenthe 2014 spurs

  3. #48
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.J4ever
    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.

    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.
    A defense that guards all two-pointers and is allowed to camp in the lane will produce an environment in which it is equally as hard to score as an environment where the defense must guard 3-pointers, can't camp in the lane, but uses additional strategy/scrambling schemes to compensate.

    So when people say today's defenses are "better", what they really mean is that today's defenses have to do more things, such as guard the 3-point line while abiding by defensive 3 seconds, and therefore must create extra strategy to do these additional things.... But the extra strategy only maintains the same level of effectiveness as before when the strategy wasn't needed because they COULD camp in the lane and didn't have guard the 3-point line. *

    So defenses in previous eras weren't missing out on some modern tactic that could have helped them - for example, previous eras didn't need the strong-side flood because that tactic was only invented to cover extra ground created by 3-point shooting and to maintain rotational capability in the face of the new defensive 3 seconds paint restriction.. The invention of scrambling schemes like the strong side flood demonstrate that defenses are fluid and adjust over time to playing style and regulatory changes in the game by doing whatever is necessary and possible to get stops - the top defenses generally don't miss anything that they could be doing.

    The fluid nature of defenses is the reason behind the long-term stability in league-wide offensive rating (Ortg) - the stat measuring how hard it is to score... Ortg in the last 10 years has been at the same levels as it was in the 80's, showing that the difficulty of scoring has remained relatively stable over time.
    Last edited by 3ball; 09-02-2014 at 10:30 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •