Why the pace was faster back when they didn't shoot 3's

[3ball]

Why the pace was faster back when they didn't shoot 3's


When facing a hand in their face, mid-range shooters can maintain their FG% a lot better than 3-point shooters can.

for this reason, basketball without 3-pointers is a faster-paced game because teams don't need to take time spacing the floor or running offense to get open 3-point looks.

in previous eras when the 3-point shot wasn't used, it was standard for players to jack up a mid-range shot at the first glimmer of daylight - without the need to run offense to get good 3-point looks, the pace was hectic back and forth - that's just how two-point basketball PLAYS..

it's a superior brand of basketball where the game and the movements on the court looked more random and organic like ants on an anthill, as opposed to today's rigid spacing and predictable movements.

and keep in mind that without the spacing and without defenders guarding the 3-point line, there was less daylight in general because defenders were in closer proximity - but this went hand-in-hand with the fact that players didn't NEED as much daylight because they were taking two-point shots and mid-range..

btw, while previous eras took all two-pointers and mid-range, these shots are considered bad, low efficiency shots in today's game and are avoided because the 3-point shooting and spacing gets better shots (3-pointers, FT's, at-rim)... accordingly, the much tougher, all-two-pointer/mid-range shot selection of previous eras put downward pressure on shooting efficiency that today's player doesn't have to deal with.
.

[Cocaine80s]

didnt read

[3ball]

didnt read

it wasn't for you...

but now i can quickly explain how two-point basketball works the next time someone says some dumb shit like "numbers were inflated back then".
.

[Marchesk]

Interesting read, thanks. We always imagine time traveling players forward and worrying about how they would adjust. But that thought experiment can go the other way. The Lebrons and Kobes wouldn't have the 3pt line and the same spacing. They would still be great, though because they are all-time greats. Some players who do well in this era might have a game that wouldn't translate well, though. Time travel is a two-way street.

[KobesFinger]

You forgot the word "was" in both your title and OP

OP I don't see your point either

[Im Still Ballin]

Lebron in the 90s would be Karl Malone infused with Jordan

Not saying he'd be better, but thats how I envision he'd play. somewhere inbetween the two

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It was faster in the 60s because it was a weak era. There were no complex offensive systems. It was basically playground/ymca basketball.

[Im Still Ballin]

They have to take 3s now because defenses are a lot smarter/faster

could they even double team in the 90s? I remember they had some rule aka illegal defense or some shit

[3ball]

OP I don't see your point either

some posters like to say "scoring was inflated back then" as a reason for why the stats for a player like Jordan were so high, without understanding that 2-point basketball results in a faster, higher volume pace and more points scored )while taking tougher, lower efficiency shots).

previous eras were higher volume, lower efficiency, and today is lower volume, higher efficiency.

and stats are now available on a per-100 possession basis, which accounts for differences in pace and playing time.. so you can compare accurately.

for example, here's MJ and LBJ's playoff stats on a per-100 basis:

MJ: 28.6 PER, 43.3 ppg, 2.2 OREB, 6.0 DREB, 7.4 AST, 4.0 TO, 2.7 STL, 1.1 BLK, 0.255 WS/48, 118 ORtg

LBJ: 27.7 PER, 36.6 PPG, 1.9 OREB, 9.0 DREB, 8.4 AST, 4.5 TO, 2.1 STL, 1.1 BLK, 0.243 WS/48, 116 ORtg

[Im Still Ballin]

some posters like to say "scoring was inflated back then" as a reason for why the stats for a player like Jordan were so high, without understanding that 2-point basketball results in a faster, higher volume pace and more points scored )while taking tougher, lower efficiency shots).

previous eras were higher volume, lower efficiency, and today is lower volume, higher efficiency.

and stats are now available on a per-100 possession basis, which accounts for differences in pace and playing time.. so you can compare accurately.. for example:

MJ: 28.6 PER, 43.3 ppg, 2.2 OREB, 6.0 DREB, 7.4 AST, 4.0 TO, 2.7 STL, 1.1 BLK, 0.255 WS/48, 118 ORtg

LBJ: 27.7 PER, 36.6 PPG, 1.9 OREB, 9.0 DREB, 8.4 AST, 4.5 TO, 2.1 STL, 1.1 BLK, 0.243 WS/48, 116 ORtg

So MJ is slightly better than Lebron

As we all know

[3ball]

So MJ is slightly better than Lebron

As we all know

well, 20% more scoring per 100 possessions is a lot, especially with a better offensive rating and better clutch play in the important games, including almost 50% more scoring in the Finals (jordan's 33.6 finals average to lebron's 23 ppg - so lebron's loading up his stats in the early rounds against washington and the like).

all that adds up to a lot... it might... i'm just saying it might.. explain the difference between 6/6 and 2/5.

and remember - all offensive players are better with spacing than without - Players in Jordan's day didn't have any spacing, so they had to take tougher, lower efficieny shots with less daylight:

[Im Still Ballin]

Do you know what his numbers were against the top teams?

Because we all know the 90s introduced multiple expansion teams which watered down the talent,

[3ball]

Do you know what his numbers were against the top teams?

Because we all know the 90s introduced multiple expansion teams which watered down the talent,

see the thread showing jordan's stats in each playoff series where he played a top 5 defense...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=362242

30 teams is 30 teams.. so, today's level of dilution is the same - and neither the 90's or today can mess with the 80's... of course, that's when jordan had 4 straight seasons of 31+ PER and 60% TS.

[pudman13]

This is one of many reasons that I continue to believe the game would be better without the 3-point shot.

Just logically, how much sense does it make to play your offense in any other way than to set up the highest percentage shot?