What does 6 on 6 basketball do to spacing?

[dhsilv2]

Again, these players are not as valuable as they are today. You migh have teams that has these players for specific specialised roles...I never made a claim that they have no place in today's game. Please read my posts

You keep saying that running your game through the post is bad iffense but I've told u many times that post oriented offense garnered higher offense league wide than when the league changed to perimeter oriented offense. Because of the FT it garners and offensive rebounds opportunities.

It'd only in recent years that the perimeter offense have caught up and overtaken a historical post oriented offense league and u keep going on about how bad post offense is.

This is after the league changing the game consistently in the past 20 yeats to make perimeter easier

You started off by referencing lumbering big men. Then you listed two of the least lumbering big men in NBA history.

The two you listed were DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard. No sorry, there has never been a league where posting up DeAndre Jordan was even bad offense. It was terrible offense. Howard, it was so so.

During the lowest scoring era in NBA history the two best offenses were the Kings and Mavs. Two perimeter teams built on passing and shooting. You can keep saying that post offense worked, but it simply isn't supported.

And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded. You're confusing this with the changes coaches made to have their guys get back on defense vs chasing offensive rebounds because teams in the 80's and into the early 90's were giving up more points in transition than they were getting off chasing offensive rebounds.

As for free throws, that all just comes down to how refs call the game. If your goal is free throws then you want to focus on guards driving to the basket and forcing the issue at the rim. That generates more fouls than post play does and it would apply to any era if you have the personnel to do it.

Not sure why you ignored my definition of "lumbering" big men in my previous posts, which are based more on the traditional big men in the game.

It's those big men that provides option in the post for offense and provide offensive rebound opportunities while providing defense on the paint AND are not generally not known to be spam shooters or perimeter drives like a lot of the "big" men do today.

They are crucial in post oriented league, because when you have teams that are dominant in the post, these players are going to be the front line defense in slowing them down (as well as perimeter drives that occured from time to time)...thats why you see a lot of these guys utilised (even if some lacked offensive prowess) utilised and also to provide second chance possesions with offensive rebounds.

Your understanding in prior eras is really lacking and you look at everything through the modern lens. Incorporating todays data to analyse prior eras is not the right approach and lacks so much context.

You stating that "And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded." just clearly shows this...because you are looking at the analysis using modern environment where teams don't generally go for offensive rebound and teams have gone away from post oriented offense.

How do we know this? Because 80s/90s Offensive rebounds has been a lot higher than what it has been in the past 20 years when the league has shifted away from post oriented offesne.

Also you can spin it as much as you want and say post oriented offense is not effecient....but 80s/90s post oriented offense was consistantly a lot higher than majority of the perimeter oriented offense in the past 20 years....ONLY CATCHING UP AROUND 2017.....after the league has implemented so many changes to make it easier for perimeter offense. .

I wonder how today's league would be like if we reversed all these rules that benefit the perimeter? You really think that it wont impact scoring? What dimension does peopole that think this way live in?

NBA teams stopped going after offensive rebounds because back in the 80's and 90's coaches started to realize that they were giving up more points. This was all the while STILL running post based offenses. Further study found that long rebounds are more likely to get offensively rebounded while factoring in, you don't want to give up a layup on the other end. You know...like the Celtics and Lakers used to do against everyone? The whole showtime transition was built coaches at that time not realizing they were losing more points than they gained by crashing the offensive glass.

Yes, if you have 4 guys standing within 10 feet of the basket as teams often did. You can have 3 guys crash the offensive boards and sure you'll get more offensive boards. That's great, and even when they did that they were getting about 30% of the offensive boards. The other 70% were leading to transition opportunities for the other team. That doesn't mean if you have Moses Malone, you don't have him cashing offensive boards.

And...I just can't with your definition of lumbering. You picked two elite athletes who are NOT lumbering. If would be like if I said the league should get rid of fat players like Rondo. I'd hope you'd call me out for calling Rondo fat.

Now if you want more rim running centers like Gobert and Capella...then Howard and Jordan are actually very similar players in a lot of ways. And all of these guys are good offensive rebounders. None of these 4 are lumbering either.

[mysticOscar]

You started off by referencing lumbering big men. Then you listed two of the least lumbering big men in NBA history.

The two you listed were DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard. No sorry, there has never been a league where posting up DeAndre Jordan was even bad offense. It was terrible offense. Howard, it was so so.

During the lowest scoring era in NBA history the two best offenses were the Kings and Mavs. Two perimeter teams built on passing and shooting. You can keep saying that post offense worked, but it simply isn't supported.

And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded. You're confusing this with the changes coaches made to have their guys get back on defense vs chasing offensive rebounds because teams in the 80's and into the early 90's were giving up more points in transition than they were getting off chasing offensive rebounds.

As for free throws, that all just comes down to how refs call the game. If your goal is free throws then you want to focus on guards driving to the basket and forcing the issue at the rim. That generates more fouls than post play does and it would apply to any era if you have the personnel to do it.

Not sure why you ignored my definition of "lumbering" big men in my previous posts, which are based more on the traditional big men in the game.

It's those big men that provides option in the post for offense and provide offensive rebound opportunities while providing defense on the paint AND are not generally not known to be spam shooters or perimeter drives like a lot of the "big" men do today.

They are crucial in post oriented league, because when you have teams that are dominant in the post, these players are going to be the front line defense in slowing them down (as well as perimeter drives that occured from time to time)...thats why you see a lot of these guys utilised (even if some lacked offensive prowess) utilised and also to provide second chance possesions with offensive rebounds.

Your understanding in prior eras is really lacking and you look at everything through the modern lens. Incorporating todays data to analyse prior eras is not the right approach and lacks so much context.

You stating that "And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded." just clearly shows this...because you are looking at the analysis using modern environment where teams don't generally go for offensive rebound and teams have gone away from post oriented offense.

How do we know this? Because 80s/90s Offensive rebounds has been a lot higher than what it has been in the past 20 years when the league has shifted away from post oriented offesne.

Also you can spin it as much as you want and say post oriented offense is not effecient....but 80s/90s post oriented offense was consistantly a lot higher than majority of the perimeter oriented offense in the past 20 years....ONLY CATCHING UP AROUND 2017.....after the league has implemented so many changes to make it easier for perimeter offense. .

I wonder how today's league would be like if we reversed all these rules that benefit the perimeter? You really think that it wont impact scoring? What dimension does peopole that think this way live in?

NBA teams stopped going after offensive rebounds because back in the 80's and 90's coaches started to realize that they were giving up more points. This was all the while STILL running post based offenses. Further study found that long rebounds are more likely to get offensively rebounded while factoring in, you don't want to give up a layup on the other end. You know...like the Celtics and Lakers used to do against everyone? The whole showtime transition was built coaches at that time not realizing they were losing more points than they gained by crashing the offensive glass.

Yes, if you have 4 guys standing within 10 feet of the basket as teams often did. You can have 3 guys crash the offensive boards and sure you'll get more offensive boards. That's great, and even when they did that they were getting about 30% of the offensive boards. The other 70% were leading to transition opportunities for the other team. That doesn't mean if you have Moses Malone, you don't have him cashing offensive boards.

And...I just can't with your definition of lumbering. You picked two elite athletes who are NOT lumbering. If would be like if I said the league should get rid of fat players like Rondo. I'd hope you'd call me out for calling Rondo fat.

Now if you want more rim running centers like Gobert and Capella...then Howard and Jordan are actually very similar players in a lot of ways. And all of these guys are good offensive rebounders. None of these 4 are lumbering either.

This is just not true. Again you have your modern lens on.

There was no correlation with higher offensive rebounds and producing weaker defense. In fact, generally the best defensive teams in the 90s were the ones that were ellite at offensive rebounding such as your Pistons, Knicks and the Bulls.

It's only when the game shifted more to the perimeter and teams strategies shifted towards more perimeter oriented offense with increase in perimeter drives and 3pt shooting that offensive rebounds was seen was a detriment with the environment and the playstyle the league has shifted to.

Regards to the lumbering big man comment, i have already clarified what i meant, multiple times, in detail...what more do you want??.

You getting hung up on it and strawmanning my point when i raised that is funny to me. I used the term "lumbering" because fans here in the forum love to describe traditional big men in the past as lumbering bigs in the 90s....but i have clarified clearly (please read my posts in detail), i was referring to the "Traditional Big Man".

Please target my point and dont get side trackd with your strawman. Traditional Big Man today are not as valuable today compared to the previous era

[dhsilv2]

Not sure why you ignored my definition of "lumbering" big men in my previous posts, which are based more on the traditional big men in the game.

It's those big men that provides option in the post for offense and provide offensive rebound opportunities while providing defense on the paint AND are not generally not known to be spam shooters or perimeter drives like a lot of the "big" men do today.

They are crucial in post oriented league, because when you have teams that are dominant in the post, these players are going to be the front line defense in slowing them down (as well as perimeter drives that occured from time to time)...thats why you see a lot of these guys utilised (even if some lacked offensive prowess) utilised and also to provide second chance possesions with offensive rebounds.

Your understanding in prior eras is really lacking and you look at everything through the modern lens. Incorporating todays data to analyse prior eras is not the right approach and lacks so much context.

You stating that "And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded." just clearly shows this...because you are looking at the analysis using modern environment where teams don't generally go for offensive rebound and teams have gone away from post oriented offense.

How do we know this? Because 80s/90s Offensive rebounds has been a lot higher than what it has been in the past 20 years when the league has shifted away from post oriented offesne.

Also you can spin it as much as you want and say post oriented offense is not effecient....but 80s/90s post oriented offense was consistantly a lot higher than majority of the perimeter oriented offense in the past 20 years....ONLY CATCHING UP AROUND 2017.....after the league has implemented so many changes to make it easier for perimeter offense. .

I wonder how today's league would be like if we reversed all these rules that benefit the perimeter? You really think that it wont impact scoring? What dimension does peopole that think this way live in?

NBA teams stopped going after offensive rebounds because back in the 80's and 90's coaches started to realize that they were giving up more points. This was all the while STILL running post based offenses. Further study found that long rebounds are more likely to get offensively rebounded while factoring in, you don't want to give up a layup on the other end. You know...like the Celtics and Lakers used to do against everyone? The whole showtime transition was built coaches at that time not realizing they were losing more points than they gained by crashing the offensive glass.

Yes, if you have 4 guys standing within 10 feet of the basket as teams often did. You can have 3 guys crash the offensive boards and sure you'll get more offensive boards. That's great, and even when they did that they were getting about 30% of the offensive boards. The other 70% were leading to transition opportunities for the other team. That doesn't mean if you have Moses Malone, you don't have him cashing offensive boards.

And...I just can't with your definition of lumbering. You picked two elite athletes who are NOT lumbering. If would be like if I said the league should get rid of fat players like Rondo. I'd hope you'd call me out for calling Rondo fat.

Now if you want more rim running centers like Gobert and Capella...then Howard and Jordan are actually very similar players in a lot of ways. And all of these guys are good offensive rebounders. None of these 4 are lumbering either.

This is just not true. Again you have your modern lens on.

There was no correlation with higher offensive rebounds and producing weaker defense. In fact, generally the best defensive teams in the 90s were the ones that were ellite at offensive rebounding such as your Pistons, Knicks and the Bulls.

It's only when the game shifted more to the perimeter and teams strategies shifted towards more perimeter oriented offense with increase in perimeter drives and 3pt shooting that offensive rebounds was seen was a detriment with the environment and the playstyle the league has shifted to.

Regards to the lumbering big man comment, i have already clarified what i meant, multiple times, in detail...what more do you want??.

You getting hung up on it and strawmanning my point when i raised that is funny to me. I used the term "lumbering" because fans here in the forum love to describe traditional big men in the past as lumbering bigs in the 90s....but i have clarified clearly (please read my posts in detail), i was referring to the "Traditional Big Man".

Please target my point and dont get side trackd with your strawman. Traditional Big Man today are not as valuable today compared to the previous era

You're clearly looking at the past with a biased view of reality.

If you are a better offensive rebounding team by virtue of just having a better offensive rebounder. Of course you're have a better defense...because you're giving up LESS transition baskets than your competition. That doesn't change that ALL of those teams were bad transition defenses... Not relative to the league but relative to what is actually good transition defense. Again, teams started dropping their offensive rebound rates in the 90's when coaches started to focus on winning through defense. While, I would be a complete moron to not look at more data to support my claims. I don't need to.

Here are offensive rebounding rates every 5 years from 80 to 05 which I'd assume we can agree were all era's of post domination. The league as it moved to improve defense was reducing these numbers because it hurt transition defense. One could make a very good argument the best defensive play in the 80's into the early 90's was to just score a basket because then the offense had to inbound the ball and it let the defense get back and set.

1980 33.5
1985 32.9
1990 32.1
1995 31.4
2000 28.9
2005 28.7

As for big men, ok fine. But you still said traditional big men and then listed off two of the most athletic big men in the last 20 years. When someone says average or traditional...I assume they're talking about Eric Montross, Lorenzo Willaims, Chris Dudley (just random sampling of average starting centers in terms of minutes from 1995). Not two big men with 40 inch verticals who could switch out on guards in their younger days.

[durden_tyler]

Just for the LOLs (and they can call it new features), NBA 2K has to implement these wild (semi-serious) RealGM ideas just to see what happens.

6 vs 6? Sure, change the setting before the game.

[mysticOscar]

NBA teams stopped going after offensive rebounds because back in the 80's and 90's coaches started to realize that they were giving up more points. This was all the while STILL running post based offenses. Further study found that long rebounds are more likely to get offensively rebounded while factoring in, you don't want to give up a layup on the other end. You know...like the Celtics and Lakers used to do against everyone? The whole showtime transition was built coaches at that time not realizing they were losing more points than they gained by crashing the offensive glass.

Yes, if you have 4 guys standing within 10 feet of the basket as teams often did. You can have 3 guys crash the offensive boards and sure you'll get more offensive boards. That's great, and even when they did that they were getting about 30% of the offensive boards. The other 70% were leading to transition opportunities for the other team. That doesn't mean if you have Moses Malone, you don't have him cashing offensive boards.

And...I just can't with your definition of lumbering. You picked two elite athletes who are NOT lumbering. If would be like if I said the league should get rid of fat players like Rondo. I'd hope you'd call me out for calling Rondo fat.

Now if you want more rim running centers like Gobert and Capella...then Howard and Jordan are actually very similar players in a lot of ways. And all of these guys are good offensive rebounders. None of these 4 are lumbering either.

This is just not true. Again you have your modern lens on.

There was no correlation with higher offensive rebounds and producing weaker defense. In fact, generally the best defensive teams in the 90s were the ones that were ellite at offensive rebounding such as your Pistons, Knicks and the Bulls.

It's only when the game shifted more to the perimeter and teams strategies shifted towards more perimeter oriented offense with increase in perimeter drives and 3pt shooting that offensive rebounds was seen was a detriment with the environment and the playstyle the league has shifted to.

Regards to the lumbering big man comment, i have already clarified what i meant, multiple times, in detail...what more do you want??.

You getting hung up on it and strawmanning my point when i raised that is funny to me. I used the term "lumbering" because fans here in the forum love to describe traditional big men in the past as lumbering bigs in the 90s....but i have clarified clearly (please read my posts in detail), i was referring to the "Traditional Big Man".

Please target my point and dont get side trackd with your strawman. Traditional Big Man today are not as valuable today compared to the previous era

You're clearly looking at the past with a biased view of reality.

If you are a better offensive rebounding team by virtue of just having a better offensive rebounder. Of course you're have a better defense...because you're giving up LESS transition baskets than your competition. That doesn't change that ALL of those teams were bad transition defenses... Not relative to the league but relative to what is actually good transition defense. Again, teams started dropping their offensive rebound rates in the 90's when coaches started to focus on winning through defense. While, I would be a complete moron to not look at more data to support my claims. I don't need to.

Here are offensive rebounding rates every 5 years from 80 to 05 which I'd assume we can agree were all era's of post domination. The league as it moved to improve defense was reducing these numbers because it hurt transition defense. One could make a very good argument the best defensive play in the 80's into the early 90's was to just score a basket because then the offense had to inbound the ball and it let the defense get back and set.

1980 33.5
1985 32.9
1990 32.1
1995 31.4
2000 28.9
2005 28.7

As for big men, ok fine. But you still said traditional big men and then listed off two of the most athletic big men in the last 20 years. When someone says average or traditional...I assume they're talking about Eric Montross, Lorenzo Willaims, Chris Dudley (just random sampling of average starting centers in terms of minutes from 1995). Not two big men with 40 inch verticals who could switch out on guards in their younger days.

The 90s transition defense was not bad, the game was more on half court sets rather than running the ball to the other side as fast as your can compared to what it was in the 80s and today. In fact you see more points from transition offense today than in the 90s.

You can't allow your opponent to provide single coverage without help on an elite post player, or allow cutters or allow the opposing team to just gobble up the offensive rebounds in the hope of a transition bucket opportunity. That's just not how it works.

You're being disingenuous with those offensive rebound stats that you are posting. The league offensive rebounds has consistently been around the 31-33 mark from the 70s to the mid 90s.....till the league shifted to the perimeter....sped up by MJ's influence on future players being drafted and the shortening of the 3pt line in the 90s

Regarding the traditional big man....my emphasis when i made that statement initially was the value of big man crowding the paint has diminished immensly today compared to prior eras....and i used some of the most recent top traditional big man to make my point. Why is this so hard to grasp???

[CobraCommander]

Hand checking would slow down scoring significantly - to score when all the player can do is either block the ball or put the hand in your face is ridiculously easy obviously.

[dhsilv2]

This is just not true. Again you have your modern lens on.

There was no correlation with higher offensive rebounds and producing weaker defense. In fact, generally the best defensive teams in the 90s were the ones that were ellite at offensive rebounding such as your Pistons, Knicks and the Bulls.

It's only when the game shifted more to the perimeter and teams strategies shifted towards more perimeter oriented offense with increase in perimeter drives and 3pt shooting that offensive rebounds was seen was a detriment with the environment and the playstyle the league has shifted to.

Regards to the lumbering big man comment, i have already clarified what i meant, multiple times, in detail...what more do you want??.

You getting hung up on it and strawmanning my point when i raised that is funny to me. I used the term "lumbering" because fans here in the forum love to describe traditional big men in the past as lumbering bigs in the 90s....but i have clarified clearly (please read my posts in detail), i was referring to the "Traditional Big Man".

Please target my point and dont get side trackd with your strawman. Traditional Big Man today are not as valuable today compared to the previous era

You're clearly looking at the past with a biased view of reality.

If you are a better offensive rebounding team by virtue of just having a better offensive rebounder. Of course you're have a better defense...because you're giving up LESS transition baskets than your competition. That doesn't change that ALL of those teams were bad transition defenses... Not relative to the league but relative to what is actually good transition defense. Again, teams started dropping their offensive rebound rates in the 90's when coaches started to focus on winning through defense. While, I would be a complete moron to not look at more data to support my claims. I don't need to.

Here are offensive rebounding rates every 5 years from 80 to 05 which I'd assume we can agree were all era's of post domination. The league as it moved to improve defense was reducing these numbers because it hurt transition defense. One could make a very good argument the best defensive play in the 80's into the early 90's was to just score a basket because then the offense had to inbound the ball and it let the defense get back and set.

1980 33.5
1985 32.9
1990 32.1
1995 31.4
2000 28.9
2005 28.7

As for big men, ok fine. But you still said traditional big men and then listed off two of the most athletic big men in the last 20 years. When someone says average or traditional...I assume they're talking about Eric Montross, Lorenzo Willaims, Chris Dudley (just random sampling of average starting centers in terms of minutes from 1995). Not two big men with 40 inch verticals who could switch out on guards in their younger days.

The 90s transition defense was not bad, the game was more on half court sets rather than running the ball to the other side as fast as your can compared to what it was in the 80s and today. In fact you see more points from transition offense today than in the 90s.

You can't allow your opponent to provide single coverage without help on an elite post player, or allow cutters or allow the opposing team to just gobble up the offensive rebounds in the hope of a transition bucket opportunity. That's just not how it works.

You're being disingenuous with those offensive rebound stats that you are posting. The league offensive rebounds has consistently been around the 31-33 mark from the 70s to the mid 90s.....till the league shifted to the perimeter....sped up by MJ's influence on future players being drafted and the shortening of the 3pt line in the 90s

Regarding the traditional big man....my emphasis when i made that statement initially was the value of big man crowding the paint has diminished immensly today compared to prior eras....and i used some of the most recent top traditional big man to make my point. Why is this so hard to grasp???

The 90's of course isn't an era of basketball and the game of basketball completely changed from the start to end of that decade. That's why I showed the offensive rebounding in 5 year increments. But yes, basketball slowed to a crawl in the 90's which with a slower pace we had less transition scoring. Teams started to learn how to play in transition, though again...it wasn't until the 00's that we saw the league fully adopting it. And in doing so the league saw offensive rebounding rates massively plumet. Again...the data I provided you.

You can't single cover any elite offensive player, not just post players. And no you can't allow the other team to just get offensive boards. That's never been a thing and is completely outside of what we're discussing. If a team is crashing the boards, you'll have more guys on defense there to get the boards too. But passes are faster than players, that's why it's better as the offensive player to get back on defense vs cashing the boards.

The shift in offensive rebounding had nothing to do with moving to the perimeter. It had to do with a focus on defense which picked up around the time the Pistons started to win. The league was of course slow to adapt and it was ultimately the bull's, knicks, and heat that started to make some progress. And then we started to see the league leap forward with teams like the Spurs later on.

Now you do have an interesting point about how the league is shifting. Teams are getting so good offensively, that the historical negative correlation between offensive rebounding and transition baskets has started to shift. So yes, if you are coming to this discussion with modern tented lenses you might not see my point here. But that is ONLY if you're coming at this with modern tinted lenses. And with that you actually are seeing some level of offensive rebounding even returning in recent years to some degree. But again that's only if you're coming here with a very modern era look.

As for big men, of course their value has taken a hit. Everyone in the league now can shoot. If we went back to the 90's and EVERYONE could shoot, the value of traditional big men camping the lane would be reduced too! That said, nearly every team has a big man, with if not a majority at least a plurality are using those bigs at least partially in drop coverage to continue to protect/camp those lanes.

[gottamakeit]

Picture this:
Towering trees all around, vines hanging down like basketball nets, and colorful flowers blooming everywhere. A court is nestled in the heart of the jungle, with patches of soft grass instead of hard pavement.

Instead of regular hoops, the baskets are woven from sturdy vines, swaying gently in the breeze. The players dribble and shoot amidst the lush greenery, leaping over fallen logs and dodging through thickets of ferns. Monkeys swing from branch to branch overhead, cheering on the players with excited chirps and hoots.

But watch out for the obstacles! Giant tree roots crisscross the court, creating natural hurdles for the players to navigate. And every now and then, a mischievous parrot might swoop down and steal the ball, sending the players on a wild chase through the jungle canopy.

Fans sit on makeshift wooden bleachers, their faces painted with tribal patterns as they clap and cheer for their favorite team.

https://imgur.com/a/AbHXFzC

[og15]

This is just wrong. Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball. This was a greater advantage to post players where defense could not prevent the ball getting to them.

On defense post big man can stand in the paint without a threat of being called as long as there opposing player was not in the arc area which just makes it so much easier to defend drives.

Players in the 90s (especially in '00s) when perimeter drives became more common and more leniency in being able to be physical off the ball just gave so much tools for defense.


Also if you watch games in those era, the illegal screens, travels, offensive fouls called are just totally different to today....it all adds up

We're not talking about the same thing.

You could generate spacing for isolation for post ups, if you're the Jazz, for a pick and roll on one side of the floor due to the rules that you wouldn't otherwise be able to without that player being able to shoot. This allowed you to build rosters that didn't need the same amount of spacing that a roster would need when you allow zone defense and defensive strategy adjusts to that.


This is also why the spacing of the average team looked a lot worse after zone defense was allowed because their rosters were still built for a different set of rules.

For sure, lots of things are called differently, but you change the enforcement back and you still have the explosion of basketball and influx of talent and all the roster building and strategic understanding. You're simply not returning to the same level of offense as the 90's, especially since the 90's was also an expansion time that watered down the bottom of the league.

You'd still be seeing average Ortg of 110+, yes, less than the averages now, but it won't be 107 and definitely not 102-103 of the early 00's. We can see the teams with roster builds that had more shooting (still far less than you would have now) at those low offense early 00's times, and they were not limited by the rules, because it wasn't just a rules issue.

It's not just rules, that's my point, this is multifactorial. Rules are a part, but thinking it's just rules is off.

Also this reminds me of a question I've asked before, which is, what is basketball supposed to look like? The 60's was minimal contact both ways, what was called as an offensive and defensive foul then would make people scratch their heads now. Travels then were very different than in the 80's and 90's. A carry then was different than the 70's and then the 80's and then the 90's. Gather step only really started being unofficially allowed in the 90's, and inconsistently. Cupping the ball was already in full force in the 90's.

Kobe was a major initial "abuser" of the rip through as we know it, as well as Duncan with his own post version. Moving screens were already in full force compared to the previous having to really be set. Remember the screen Karl Malone set to free Stockton with he hit the series winning shot vs Houston? Straight up holding.

Why would we choose 90's enforcement as the "standard"?

If you revert all the rules back to the 90s...teams will adjust to take advantage on all the tools the defense have in there arsenal.

Today's offense style is powered by the threat of the drive, defense will now have the arsenal to slow these down...which will then limit the amount teams can spam there sets that are predicated on a threat of a drive.

Also defenders will take advantage of having more leeway to get physical off the ball, tiring the shooters.

Perimeter offense will also be now limited...

Perimeter offense will realise that you can no longer get away with push off's.

In 90s basketball and players getting called on illegal screens because they leaned slightly to the left are a joke when compared to what players can do now on screens

Travels in prior eras that looked like a travel were generally called a travel unlike today where we now we make excuses to say "hey he was in process of gathering while taking a step blah blah"

In short, offensive sets that relay on a threat of perimeter drives are going to be negatively impacted...and much harder to spam effectively.

But if we revert the rules back to the 90s, teams will realise having a big man in the post who teams can rely to initiate the offense will be harder to deny...and they will have the bonus to really clog up the paint for perimeter drives.

I see, so you also think illegal defense should be brought back, correct? At least that is what I am understanding.

There was a lot that happened in the 90's basketball wise. How things were called in 91-92 was not the same as in 98-99, so it also depends on what 90's you are referring to.

There were many reasons illegal defense was changed, and at least one was that coaches, players AND refs did not fully understand the rule. Yes, refs, the ones who were supposed to implement the rule did not fully understand it. Yes, this was a real thing, it is documented and it's part of why it was changed because it was a convoluted rule. Its job was to manufacture spacing by preventing clogging the lane. Its goal was to force man to man defense.

https://www.deseret.com/1988/4/14/18763441/illegal-defense-br-rule-is-as-confusing-as-new-tax-laws-and-full-of-nearly-as-many-loopholes/

Here's the reality, the NBA loved the 80's, faster paced basketball, free flowing, ball movement, etc. Isolation basketball started to creep in during the late 80's and early 90's and the NBA kept adding rules with the goal of preventing isolation offense.

Remember the illegal offense rule of the late 80's and 90's, aka, the anti-isolation rule? Now, I don't know how often it was actually called, but the rule stated that you couldn't put three offensive players outside the 3PT line away from the ball. Now, why would the NBA add such a rule if teams weren't manipulating illegal defense rules in other to generate fake spacing for perimeter/post iso? It wasn't just a random rule they decided to add at the end of the 80's.

Now of course you could still use illegal defense to generate spacing like that, just that one of those three guys had to be in the corner.

By the 90's most of what we see with screens now was already in play. Now, if the argument is that, "well more players have added those screening 'techniques' " if that's what we want to call them, sure. But using arms on screens, being able to move on screens vs being fully set, going into the man vs holding a stationary screen and waiting for them to go into you, using the roll after the screen as a screen in itself, these were all in play. I am a proponent of being more strict on screens.

Watch that and focus only on the screens:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUfcmVnZ2llIG1pbGxlciBvZmYgYmFsbCBtb3ZlbWVudA%3D%3D

At 4:19 and 4:44 and even the attempted screen at 4:54, the video is closer so we can see better, this is 00, look at that screen, that would be automatically called in 1970, probably 1980, but by the 90's and 00's, you're getting away with tons of that stuff.

Post offense is easier when defenders can't play in space,yes, 100% correct.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUPbmJhIGZpbmFscyAxOTkx

That's a fun game, I enjoy watching that series. Most of the post opportunities there would look different if you're not playing with illegal defense rules though.

[mysticOscar]

You're clearly looking at the past with a biased view of reality.

If you are a better offensive rebounding team by virtue of just having a better offensive rebounder. Of course you're have a better defense...because you're giving up LESS transition baskets than your competition. That doesn't change that ALL of those teams were bad transition defenses... Not relative to the league but relative to what is actually good transition defense. Again, teams started dropping their offensive rebound rates in the 90's when coaches started to focus on winning through defense. While, I would be a complete moron to not look at more data to support my claims. I don't need to.

Here are offensive rebounding rates every 5 years from 80 to 05 which I'd assume we can agree were all era's of post domination. The league as it moved to improve defense was reducing these numbers because it hurt transition defense. One could make a very good argument the best defensive play in the 80's into the early 90's was to just score a basket because then the offense had to inbound the ball and it let the defense get back and set.

1980 33.5
1985 32.9
1990 32.1
1995 31.4
2000 28.9
2005 28.7

As for big men, ok fine. But you still said traditional big men and then listed off two of the most athletic big men in the last 20 years. When someone says average or traditional...I assume they're talking about Eric Montross, Lorenzo Willaims, Chris Dudley (just random sampling of average starting centers in terms of minutes from 1995). Not two big men with 40 inch verticals who could switch out on guards in their younger days.

The 90s transition defense was not bad, the game was more on half court sets rather than running the ball to the other side as fast as your can compared to what it was in the 80s and today. In fact you see more points from transition offense today than in the 90s.

You can't allow your opponent to provide single coverage without help on an elite post player, or allow cutters or allow the opposing team to just gobble up the offensive rebounds in the hope of a transition bucket opportunity. That's just not how it works.

You're being disingenuous with those offensive rebound stats that you are posting. The league offensive rebounds has consistently been around the 31-33 mark from the 70s to the mid 90s.....till the league shifted to the perimeter....sped up by MJ's influence on future players being drafted and the shortening of the 3pt line in the 90s

Regarding the traditional big man....my emphasis when i made that statement initially was the value of big man crowding the paint has diminished immensly today compared to prior eras....and i used some of the most recent top traditional big man to make my point. Why is this so hard to grasp???

The 90's of course isn't an era of basketball and the game of basketball completely changed from the start to end of that decade. That's why I showed the offensive rebounding in 5 year increments. But yes, basketball slowed to a crawl in the 90's which with a slower pace we had less transition scoring. Teams started to learn how to play in transition, though again...it wasn't until the 00's that we saw the league fully adopting it. And in doing so the league saw offensive rebounding rates massively plumet. Again...the data I provided you.

You can't single cover any elite offensive player, not just post players. And no you can't allow the other team to just get offensive boards. That's never been a thing and is completely outside of what we're discussing. If a team is crashing the boards, you'll have more guys on defense there to get the boards too. But passes are faster than players, that's why it's better as the offensive player to get back on defense vs cashing the boards.

The shift in offensive rebounding had nothing to do with moving to the perimeter. It had to do with a focus on defense which picked up around the time the Pistons started to win. The league was of course slow to adapt and it was ultimately the bull's, knicks, and heat that started to make some progress. And then we started to see the league leap forward with teams like the Spurs later on.

Now you do have an interesting point about how the league is shifting. Teams are getting so good offensively, that the historical negative correlation between offensive rebounding and transition baskets has started to shift. So yes, if you are coming to this discussion with modern tented lenses you might not see my point here. But that is ONLY if you're coming at this with modern tinted lenses. And with that you actually are seeing some level of offensive rebounding even returning in recent years to some degree. But again that's only if you're coming here with a very modern era look.

As for big men, of course their value has taken a hit. Everyone in the league now can shoot. If we went back to the 90's and EVERYONE could shoot, the value of traditional big men camping the lane would be reduced too! That said, nearly every team has a big man, with if not a majority at least a plurality are using those bigs at least partially in drop coverage to continue to protect/camp those lanes.

The shifting of offensive rebounds as a lot to do with post vs perimeter offense.

I don't know why you are arguing this.

If your going to initiate your offense closer to the basket, your also going to have a few of your peers operating close to thr basket for inlet passes / cutters which leaves a few players close to the basket for offensive rebounds.

Also the art of scoring close to the basket naturally enables you more opportunities to grab rebounds from your own misses.

Now the basic premise of perimeter offense is leave the paint open (including your bigs) for perimeter drives and have your peers far away from the basket close or above the 3pt line for pass outs...which limits the opportunities for offensive rebounds. And generally if a person is driving and they miss, the opportnity to rebound is limited cause of the size of the player that generally drives and how out of balance they are in those drives.

This is not rocket science.

The pace of the game did slow down in the 90s compared to the 80s as teams milked the shot clock and worked more on half court sets....but it was still a lot higher than when the league shifted towards the perimeter in the late 90s and 2000s.

Why? Because the league environment / rules was not conducive to perimeter offense...and it took a lot longer for offensive sets to get going to open up the opportunity for perimeter to penetrate into the paint...and the offensive effeciency in the league plummeting...until the league kept tinkering with the rules to make it easier for the perimeter players.

The league committee that made these rules did it for a reason, and that's how the league actually ended up. Shouldn't we trust that they knew what they were doing instead of coming up with other theories?

Look at this link under the introduction section. It provides a detailed objectives and why the committee proposed in the early 00s.

https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-impact-of-nba-new-rules-on-games/

Here are some snippets:

After much scrutiny from sports media and fans alike, the NBA appointed the Select Committee on Playing Rules to analyze and revise the rules of the game beginning in the 2001-02 season and made further adjustments to the rules beginning in the 2004-05 season. The NBA had a declining attendance and television viewership, and rule changes were necessary to restore viewer satisfaction and support (Ibanez, Rubio, Gomez, Espinosa 2018). The committee agreed that any rule changes must work to make the game faster, supply more freedom to offenses, and most importantly make the smaller “shooter” players more likely to succeed (3).

Jerry Colangelo, the owner of Phoenix Suns who had led the Select Committee on rule changes, had intended to make the game more free flowing and fast paced; data show the committee accomplished the goals of the league. Three-second defensive rule has forced the big centers and shot blockers out of the lane. Elimination of illegal defense together with the combined effect of other rule changes resulted in open lane to the basket. This in turn created opportunities for quick guards and forwards to run through the lane for a layup or dunk. Hand check rules made fouling the 3-point shooter a costly option for the defense, thereby creating opportunities for sharpshooters to score early in the shot clock.

[dhsilv2]

The 90s transition defense was not bad, the game was more on half court sets rather than running the ball to the other side as fast as your can compared to what it was in the 80s and today. In fact you see more points from transition offense today than in the 90s.

You can't allow your opponent to provide single coverage without help on an elite post player, or allow cutters or allow the opposing team to just gobble up the offensive rebounds in the hope of a transition bucket opportunity. That's just not how it works.

You're being disingenuous with those offensive rebound stats that you are posting. The league offensive rebounds has consistently been around the 31-33 mark from the 70s to the mid 90s.....till the league shifted to the perimeter....sped up by MJ's influence on future players being drafted and the shortening of the 3pt line in the 90s

Regarding the traditional big man....my emphasis when i made that statement initially was the value of big man crowding the paint has diminished immensly today compared to prior eras....and i used some of the most recent top traditional big man to make my point. Why is this so hard to grasp???

The 90's of course isn't an era of basketball and the game of basketball completely changed from the start to end of that decade. That's why I showed the offensive rebounding in 5 year increments. But yes, basketball slowed to a crawl in the 90's which with a slower pace we had less transition scoring. Teams started to learn how to play in transition, though again...it wasn't until the 00's that we saw the league fully adopting it. And in doing so the league saw offensive rebounding rates massively plumet. Again...the data I provided you.

You can't single cover any elite offensive player, not just post players. And no you can't allow the other team to just get offensive boards. That's never been a thing and is completely outside of what we're discussing. If a team is crashing the boards, you'll have more guys on defense there to get the boards too. But passes are faster than players, that's why it's better as the offensive player to get back on defense vs cashing the boards.

The shift in offensive rebounding had nothing to do with moving to the perimeter. It had to do with a focus on defense which picked up around the time the Pistons started to win. The league was of course slow to adapt and it was ultimately the bull's, knicks, and heat that started to make some progress. And then we started to see the league leap forward with teams like the Spurs later on.

Now you do have an interesting point about how the league is shifting. Teams are getting so good offensively, that the historical negative correlation between offensive rebounding and transition baskets has started to shift. So yes, if you are coming to this discussion with modern tented lenses you might not see my point here. But that is ONLY if you're coming at this with modern tinted lenses. And with that you actually are seeing some level of offensive rebounding even returning in recent years to some degree. But again that's only if you're coming here with a very modern era look.

As for big men, of course their value has taken a hit. Everyone in the league now can shoot. If we went back to the 90's and EVERYONE could shoot, the value of traditional big men camping the lane would be reduced too! That said, nearly every team has a big man, with if not a majority at least a plurality are using those bigs at least partially in drop coverage to continue to protect/camp those lanes.

The shifting of offensive rebounds as a lot to do with post vs perimeter offense.

I don't know why you are arguing this.

If your going to initiate your offense closer to the basket, your also going to have a few of your peers operating close to thr basket for inlet passes / cutters which leaves a few players close to the basket for offensive rebounds.

Also the art of scoring close to the basket naturally enables you more opportunities to grab rebounds from your own misses.

Now the basic premise of perimeter offense is leave the paint open (including your bigs) for perimeter drives and have your peers far away from the basket close or above the 3pt line for pass outs...which limits the opportunities for offensive rebounds. And generally if a person is driving and they miss, the opportnity to rebound is limited cause of the size of the player that generally drives and how out of balance they are in those drives.

This is not rocket science.

The pace of the game did slow down in the 90s compared to the 80s as teams milked the shot clock and worked more on half court sets....but it was still a lot higher than when the league shifted towards the perimeter in the late 90s and 2000s.

Why? Because the league environment / rules was not conducive to perimeter offense...and it took a lot longer for offensive sets to get going to open up the opportunity for perimeter to penetrate into the paint...and the offensive effeciency in the league plummeting...until the league kept tinkering with the rules to make it easier for the perimeter players.

The league committee that made these rules did it for a reason, and that's how the league actually ended up. Shouldn't we trust that they knew what they were doing instead of coming up with other theories?

Look at this link under the introduction section. It provides a detailed objectives and why the committee proposed in the early 00s.

https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-impact-of-nba-new-rules-on-games/

Here are some snippets:

After much scrutiny from sports media and fans alike, the NBA appointed the Select Committee on Playing Rules to analyze and revise the rules of the game beginning in the 2001-02 season and made further adjustments to the rules beginning in the 2004-05 season. The NBA had a declining attendance and television viewership, and rule changes were necessary to restore viewer satisfaction and support (Ibanez, Rubio, Gomez, Espinosa 2018). The committee agreed that any rule changes must work to make the game faster, supply more freedom to offenses, and most importantly make the smaller “shooter” players more likely to succeed (3).

Jerry Colangelo, the owner of Phoenix Suns who had led the Select Committee on rule changes, had intended to make the game more free flowing and fast paced; data show the committee accomplished the goals of the league. Three-second defensive rule has forced the big centers and shot blockers out of the lane. Elimination of illegal defense together with the combined effect of other rule changes resulted in open lane to the basket. This in turn created opportunities for quick guards and forwards to run through the lane for a layup or dunk. Hand check rules made fouling the 3-point shooter a costly option for the defense, thereby creating opportunities for sharpshooters to score early in the shot clock.

If what you're saying were true a team like the early 00's Spurs who ran TWO centers and didn't have any strong offensive guards should be near the top of the league in offensive rebounding. Instead in 98 and 99 they were right about league average. 2000 the dropped to 22nd out of 29. 21st in 2001.

This was all before these rule changes you're hammering home about. Pop was just following the trend already happening with the league already. Brett Brown has even been quoted saying that Pop would tell players he didn't care if they ever got another offensive rebound again. He wanted all 5 players back on defense. Again this was on a team dominated by 2 centers!

BTW the knicks weren't a top offensive rebounding team. 23rd in 1995. 29th in 1996 (last). So again, during the era where defense was getting better and the knicks were seen as among the better defenses....less offensive boards. The bulls were just an outlier because Rodman is Rodman...

[mysticOscar]

The 90's of course isn't an era of basketball and the game of basketball completely changed from the start to end of that decade. That's why I showed the offensive rebounding in 5 year increments. But yes, basketball slowed to a crawl in the 90's which with a slower pace we had less transition scoring. Teams started to learn how to play in transition, though again...it wasn't until the 00's that we saw the league fully adopting it. And in doing so the league saw offensive rebounding rates massively plumet. Again...the data I provided you.

You can't single cover any elite offensive player, not just post players. And no you can't allow the other team to just get offensive boards. That's never been a thing and is completely outside of what we're discussing. If a team is crashing the boards, you'll have more guys on defense there to get the boards too. But passes are faster than players, that's why it's better as the offensive player to get back on defense vs cashing the boards.

The shift in offensive rebounding had nothing to do with moving to the perimeter. It had to do with a focus on defense which picked up around the time the Pistons started to win. The league was of course slow to adapt and it was ultimately the bull's, knicks, and heat that started to make some progress. And then we started to see the league leap forward with teams like the Spurs later on.

Now you do have an interesting point about how the league is shifting. Teams are getting so good offensively, that the historical negative correlation between offensive rebounding and transition baskets has started to shift. So yes, if you are coming to this discussion with modern tented lenses you might not see my point here. But that is ONLY if you're coming at this with modern tinted lenses. And with that you actually are seeing some level of offensive rebounding even returning in recent years to some degree. But again that's only if you're coming here with a very modern era look.

As for big men, of course their value has taken a hit. Everyone in the league now can shoot. If we went back to the 90's and EVERYONE could shoot, the value of traditional big men camping the lane would be reduced too! That said, nearly every team has a big man, with if not a majority at least a plurality are using those bigs at least partially in drop coverage to continue to protect/camp those lanes.

The shifting of offensive rebounds as a lot to do with post vs perimeter offense.

I don't know why you are arguing this.

If your going to initiate your offense closer to the basket, your also going to have a few of your peers operating close to thr basket for inlet passes / cutters which leaves a few players close to the basket for offensive rebounds.

Also the art of scoring close to the basket naturally enables you more opportunities to grab rebounds from your own misses.

Now the basic premise of perimeter offense is leave the paint open (including your bigs) for perimeter drives and have your peers far away from the basket close or above the 3pt line for pass outs...which limits the opportunities for offensive rebounds. And generally if a person is driving and they miss, the opportnity to rebound is limited cause of the size of the player that generally drives and how out of balance they are in those drives.

This is not rocket science.

The pace of the game did slow down in the 90s compared to the 80s as teams milked the shot clock and worked more on half court sets....but it was still a lot higher than when the league shifted towards the perimeter in the late 90s and 2000s.

Why? Because the league environment / rules was not conducive to perimeter offense...and it took a lot longer for offensive sets to get going to open up the opportunity for perimeter to penetrate into the paint...and the offensive effeciency in the league plummeting...until the league kept tinkering with the rules to make it easier for the perimeter players.

The league committee that made these rules did it for a reason, and that's how the league actually ended up. Shouldn't we trust that they knew what they were doing instead of coming up with other theories?

Look at this link under the introduction section. It provides a detailed objectives and why the committee proposed in the early 00s.

https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-impact-of-nba-new-rules-on-games/

Here are some snippets:

After much scrutiny from sports media and fans alike, the NBA appointed the Select Committee on Playing Rules to analyze and revise the rules of the game beginning in the 2001-02 season and made further adjustments to the rules beginning in the 2004-05 season. The NBA had a declining attendance and television viewership, and rule changes were necessary to restore viewer satisfaction and support (Ibanez, Rubio, Gomez, Espinosa 2018). The committee agreed that any rule changes must work to make the game faster, supply more freedom to offenses, and most importantly make the smaller “shooter” players more likely to succeed (3).

Jerry Colangelo, the owner of Phoenix Suns who had led the Select Committee on rule changes, had intended to make the game more free flowing and fast paced; data show the committee accomplished the goals of the league. Three-second defensive rule has forced the big centers and shot blockers out of the lane. Elimination of illegal defense together with the combined effect of other rule changes resulted in open lane to the basket. This in turn created opportunities for quick guards and forwards to run through the lane for a layup or dunk. Hand check rules made fouling the 3-point shooter a costly option for the defense, thereby creating opportunities for sharpshooters to score early in the shot clock.

If what you're saying were true a team like the early 00's Spurs who ran TWO centers and didn't have any strong offensive guards should be near the top of the league in offensive rebounding. Instead in 98 and 99 they were right about league average. 2000 the dropped to 22nd out of 29. 21st in 2001.

This was all before these rule changes you're hammering home about. Pop was just following the trend already happening with the league already. Brett Brown has even been quoted saying that Pop would tell players he didn't care if they ever got another offensive rebound again. He wanted all 5 players back on defense. Again this was on a team dominated by 2 centers!

BTW the knicks weren't a top offensive rebounding team. 23rd in 1995. 29th in 1996 (last). So again, during the era where defense was getting better and the knicks were seen as among the better defenses....less offensive boards. The bulls were just an outlier because Rodman is Rodman...

The Spurs in '99 were known more for there defense than offense...because you know...two elite bigs guarding paint?

The knicks were in the top 10 in the early 90s in OReb...then dropped out of the top 10 in the shortened 3pt line season onwards...which brings back my point about OReb not correlated to defense...which your theory states that it does in the 90s.

I think this discussion has run its course...let's leave it here

[dhsilv2]

The shifting of offensive rebounds as a lot to do with post vs perimeter offense.

I don't know why you are arguing this.

If your going to initiate your offense closer to the basket, your also going to have a few of your peers operating close to thr basket for inlet passes / cutters which leaves a few players close to the basket for offensive rebounds.

Also the art of scoring close to the basket naturally enables you more opportunities to grab rebounds from your own misses.

Now the basic premise of perimeter offense is leave the paint open (including your bigs) for perimeter drives and have your peers far away from the basket close or above the 3pt line for pass outs...which limits the opportunities for offensive rebounds. And generally if a person is driving and they miss, the opportnity to rebound is limited cause of the size of the player that generally drives and how out of balance they are in those drives.

This is not rocket science.

The pace of the game did slow down in the 90s compared to the 80s as teams milked the shot clock and worked more on half court sets....but it was still a lot higher than when the league shifted towards the perimeter in the late 90s and 2000s.

Why? Because the league environment / rules was not conducive to perimeter offense...and it took a lot longer for offensive sets to get going to open up the opportunity for perimeter to penetrate into the paint...and the offensive effeciency in the league plummeting...until the league kept tinkering with the rules to make it easier for the perimeter players.

The league committee that made these rules did it for a reason, and that's how the league actually ended up. Shouldn't we trust that they knew what they were doing instead of coming up with other theories?

Look at this link under the introduction section. It provides a detailed objectives and why the committee proposed in the early 00s.

https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-impact-of-nba-new-rules-on-games/

Here are some snippets:

If what you're saying were true a team like the early 00's Spurs who ran TWO centers and didn't have any strong offensive guards should be near the top of the league in offensive rebounding. Instead in 98 and 99 they were right about league average. 2000 the dropped to 22nd out of 29. 21st in 2001.

This was all before these rule changes you're hammering home about. Pop was just following the trend already happening with the league already. Brett Brown has even been quoted saying that Pop would tell players he didn't care if they ever got another offensive rebound again. He wanted all 5 players back on defense. Again this was on a team dominated by 2 centers!

BTW the knicks weren't a top offensive rebounding team. 23rd in 1995. 29th in 1996 (last). So again, during the era where defense was getting better and the knicks were seen as among the better defenses....less offensive boards. The bulls were just an outlier because Rodman is Rodman...

The Spurs in '99 were known more for there defense than offense...because you know...two elite bigs guarding paint?

The knicks were in the top 10 in the early 90s in OReb...then dropped out of the top 10 in the shortened 3pt line season onwards...which brings back my point about OReb not correlated to defense...which your theory states that it does in the 90s.

I think this discussion has run its course...let's leave it here

Until the last few years, offensive rebounding negatively correlated with transition defense. Again stop looking at this through a modern lens! And lets be clear again. Just because you have good or bad transition defense doesn't mean your overall defense is good or bad. If you have exceptionally good offensive rebounders, then you can still get them. It's about the strategy to get the offensive boards. As defenses got better in the 90's, offensive rebounding dropped on average. This was by design from coaching. And that accelerated in the early 00's as scoring reached it's lowest point driven by defensive coaches who had post oriented offenses. With Pop being one of the biggest advocates of it. All of this before all these offensive changes you keep talking about.

[Joao Saraiva]

I think 25 on 25 would be ideal. Football tackles allowed, no substitions. Injured players just get off the court, if they can.

I'd really like to see the Royal Rumble in the NBA. The team that wins gets to sing I'm a survivor at the end of the game.

This solves the magnets problem and now pets are allowed.

[Joao Saraiva]

At least save these threads for the off season. Playoffs are almost here, we can actually discuss the season.

[dhsilv2]

Hand checking would slow down scoring significantly - to score when all the player can do is either block the ball or put the hand in your face is ridiculously easy obviously.

So bring back 1970's rules...

[Sofia]

Court needs to be embiggened then too

Perfectly cromulent idea

[Sofia]

Court needs to be embiggened then too

This sounds like a perfectly cromulent suggestion.

Damn it

[Ein Sof]

What if we warped the court so that it is lower at midcourt and higher at the goals. That way 3 point shots are shooting at a higher basket and also there is variation in height around the 3 point line, making it a more challenging shot.

Allow me to provide a helpful illustration:



Another perk is it rewards players with strong ankles as they'll be playing on an incline.

ETA: I can hear you folks thinking that this is a perfect idea except for one thing - doesn't this make dunking harder? Fear not, a simple modification where we ramp up to the basket and then back down would solve for that problem. Something along these lines:

This simulates the average outdoor court, therefore making it the purest basketball possible. I approve.

[mysticOscar]

If what you're saying were true a team like the early 00's Spurs who ran TWO centers and didn't have any strong offensive guards should be near the top of the league in offensive rebounding. Instead in 98 and 99 they were right about league average. 2000 the dropped to 22nd out of 29. 21st in 2001.

This was all before these rule changes you're hammering home about. Pop was just following the trend already happening with the league already. Brett Brown has even been quoted saying that Pop would tell players he didn't care if they ever got another offensive rebound again. He wanted all 5 players back on defense. Again this was on a team dominated by 2 centers!

BTW the knicks weren't a top offensive rebounding team. 23rd in 1995. 29th in 1996 (last). So again, during the era where defense was getting better and the knicks were seen as among the better defenses....less offensive boards. The bulls were just an outlier because Rodman is Rodman...

The Spurs in '99 were known more for there defense than offense...because you know...two elite bigs guarding paint?

The knicks were in the top 10 in the early 90s in OReb...then dropped out of the top 10 in the shortened 3pt line season onwards...which brings back my point about OReb not correlated to defense...which your theory states that it does in the 90s.

I think this discussion has run its course...let's leave it here

Until the last few years, offensive rebounding negatively correlated with transition defense. Again stop looking at this through a modern lens! And lets be clear again. Just because you have good or bad transition defense doesn't mean your overall defense is good or bad. If you have exceptionally good offensive rebounders, then you can still get them. It's about the strategy to get the offensive boards. As defenses got better in the 90's, offensive rebounding dropped on average. This was by design from coaching. And that accelerated in the early 00's as scoring reached it's lowest point driven by defensive coaches who had post oriented offenses. With Pop being one of the biggest advocates of it. All of this before all these offensive changes you keep talking about.

I mean, if you can't understand that how good a team was defensively in the 80s/90s was more strongly correlated with how elite your big man defensively and your team defended the post than stopping transition defense...then there's no point conversing further on this.