The amount of talent in the league today is absurd

[reddyplayerone]

The actual absurd thing here is that there are tons of people (aka. 'old heads') who actually believe that basketball players stopped evolving... seconds after MJ won his last championship.

Because basketball, unlike every other facet of life, is immune to evolution. There should be a deep study on this anomaly.

Except that's not how evolution works like at all. It's an exceptionally slow process.

This era of basketball is different, and it's mostly because of rule changes, and that's fine.

Biological evolution is slow. But the term is used outside of biology pretty often. In terms of sports and technology, it's pretty fast moving.

Not really.

The three point line was first introduced to basketball in 1961. Stephen Curry wasn't drafted until 2009.

Nearly 50 years is a pretty long time actually!

[Lala870]

So basically the warriors are being used as a benchmark for how "talented" the league has become?

Um no

Give reggie miller moving screens and the green light... he would average 50

[Woodsanity]

So basically the warriors are being used as a benchmark for how "talented" the league has become?

Um no

Give reggie miller moving screens and the green light... he would average 50

So a far lesser version of Curry is going to average more than prime Curry in this current era....

More nonsense.

[Lala870]

Also its hilarious. The league has so much talent these days the best players spend 50% of the season not playing due to "load management".

Watch on YouTube

2:25

[Lala870]

So basically the warriors are being used as a benchmark for how "talented" the league has become?

Um no

Give reggie miller moving screens and the green light... he would average 50

So a far lesser version of Curry is going to average more than prime Curry in this current era....

More nonsense.

"Far lesser version of curry"

... Wtf are you talking about?

[ballzboyee]

League finally eradicated most hand checking in 2004-05, and within a few years the league ppg average went up 5 percent to about 100 ppg, and pretty much stayed at that level until 2015. From 2015 to 2017 we saw another almost 5 percent jump in scoring as teams starting shooting way more 3's. Teams were shooting on average about five more 3's per game (22 to 27) from 2015 to 2017. In 2018 the league comes out with several major rule changes that affected pace and point of education emphasizing of freedom of movement of offensive players. Since then the league average has gone from 106 ppg in 2018 to a huge jump of 114 ppg. Teams are shooting about eight more 3's per game than they were in 2018.

However, in my opinion, the biggest difference or change has been the proliferation of 5-out offenses designed to space the floor. Essentially these schemes which every team now runs almost forces a defense to play man-to-man the perimeter, and with no hand checking allowed and freedom of movement restrictions on the defensive players, it's very easy for teams to get the best players in iso situations or just get their second and third option shooters in space for easy knock downs. As a result offenses get the best of both worlds. They get favorable iso matchups with none of the physical perimeter play that used to be allowed.

The scoring that we see today is clearly rule driven on some level. It's not just the talent. Of course, there are more talented in shooters in the league today, but it is copy cat league. Teams are reacting to the trend of more and more 3's by adding more shooters to their rosters. It's a little bit of both the rules and better players. The rules have made it easier to score, and teams are developing rosters around the most important talent in basketball and that's pure shooting.

[Lala870]

The scoring that we see today is clearly rule driven on some level. It's not just the talent. Of course, there are more talented in shooters in the league today, but it is copy cat league. Teams are reacting to the trend of more and more 3's by adding more shooters to their rosters. It's a little bit of both the rules and better players. The rules have made it easier to score, and teams are developing rosters around the most important talent in basketball and that's pure shooting.

So all things considered we cant claim there are more talented shooters today when its being driven by league/rule changes. The fact there have always been sharpshooters who could knock down 3's in much tougher defensive eras should be a testament to this.

The league has let curry get away with murder for years now in terms of getting wide open looks

Golden state has ruined the game of basketball

[ballzboyee]

The scoring that we see today is clearly rule driven on some level. It's not just the talent. Of course, there are more talented in shooters in the league today, but it is copy cat league. Teams are reacting to the trend of more and more 3's by adding more shooters to their rosters. It's a little bit of both the rules and better players. The rules have made it easier to score, and teams are developing rosters around the most important talent in basketball and that's pure shooting.

So all things considered we cant claim there are more talented shooters today when its being driven by league/rule changes. The fact there have always been sharpshooters who could knock down 3's in much tougher defensive eras should be a testament to this.

The league has let curry get away with murder for years now in terms of getting wide open looks

If you took a modern NBA and dropped them into the 1990's and told that team to run exclusively a 5-out, then what would happen? I guess that's the question. It really depends on how physical the defenders are allowed to be on the perimeter. Since the 3-point shot back in the day wasn't very popular, teams did not always guard the shooter very aggressively back then. There's really not a lot you can do other than be physical. Switching is only so effective, and it's difficult for defenders to get off screens. It's easy for the offense to attack over commits and reverse the ball. Also, the players in the league today do not need a lot of daylight to get an efficient shot. It would be interesting to watch, but at least the average NBA defender from the 1990's would have the option to be a lot more physical according to the rules back then. It would be an interesting chess match.

[Lala870]

The scoring that we see today is clearly rule driven on some level. It's not just the talent. Of course, there are more talented in shooters in the league today, but it is copy cat league. Teams are reacting to the trend of more and more 3's by adding more shooters to their rosters. It's a little bit of both the rules and better players. The rules have made it easier to score, and teams are developing rosters around the most important talent in basketball and that's pure shooting.

So all things considered we cant claim there are more talented shooters today when its being driven by league/rule changes. The fact there have always been sharpshooters who could knock down 3's in much tougher defensive eras should be a testament to this.

The league has let curry get away with murder for years now in terms of getting wide open looks

If you took a modern NBA and dropped them into the 1990's and told that team to run exclusively a 5-out, then what would happen? I guess that's the question. It really depends on how physical the defenders are allowed to be on the perimeter. Since the 3-point shot back in the day wasn't very popular, teams did not always guard the shooter very aggressively back then. There's really not a lot you can do other than be physical. Switching is only so effective, and it's difficult for defenders to get off screens. It's easy for the offense to attack over commits and reverse the ball. Also, the players in the league today do not need a lot of daylight to get an efficient shot. It would be interesting to watch, but at least the average NBA defender from the 1990's would have the option to be a lot more physical according to the rules back then. It would be an interesting chess match.

I dont think curry/klay would be considered HOF caliber players in the 90's at the very least

Andre Roberson was throwing klay off his game back in 2016/17 so I fail to see how even better perimeter defenders in the 90's would have not given those guys issues.

Golden State is a highly misleading team when you actually watch them live.

I keep going back to this video and am am stunned at what a pansy iguodala is here

Watch on YouTube

[Nuntius]

What evidence do you have that defense and offense can be at a all time efficiency at the same time? Enlighten me. How is the defense in today's game up to par while simultaneously ceding more baskets than ever before. Is the goal still NOT to allow the ball in the hoop or are we scoring games differently now?

I never made the claim that both defense and offense are at an all time high so I have no idea why you're asking me this question.

My evidence that defense is down IS that offense is at a all time high.

That isn't actual evidence, though. For that to be actual evidence, you would have to prove that the two variables in question (offensive quality and defensive quality) have a statistically dependent relationship. You would to have to prove that when variable A (offensive quality) rises then variable B (defensive quality) plummets. You have not done that as well.

What you chose to do instead was take your original claim ("If points are up, defense is down"), phrase it in a slightly different way and try to pass it off as evidence. That's just circular reasoning.

So what is your point and what is your question. It seems your only point is you disagree with me that the NBA defense is bad. I provided you 4 articles, two of which have Paul George and Steve Kerr agreeing that the NBA defense is in rough shape. (It is). You disagree with it. Ok cool. I can't help you there.

So now you don't disagree with the idea that the NBA can't both have great offense and great defense league wide simultaneously. Wonderful. I never said every player and every team at all times were horrendous at defense either.

How can points be up WITHOUT defense being down? How else do you score points if not because your defense is giving them up? You can't answer that question it seems, only that you don't know if that can be true.

Well great. You have no answers for anything.

My point is simple:

Your "if points are up, defense is down" claim is nonsensical. It just doesn't work.

You wanna know why it doesn't work? It doesn't work due to its extreme reductiveness and simplicity. What you are basically trying to say here is that it's all about the result. That the only thing that matters is whether the ball went through the hoop or not. And that's simply not how we generally try to access quality.

If it was all about the result then this is good defense:

Watch on YouTube

And this is bad defense:

Watch on YouTube

Do you understand how why your claim makes no logical sense?

That's it. That's my point. That's why I replied to your posts. I didn't reply in order to try to change your mind on whether defense in today's NBA is good or not. I didn't reply in order to express my disagreement with your overall opinion. I replied because I wanted to comment on that specific point.

[The Corey's]

I never made the claim that both defense and offense are at an all time high so I have no idea why you're asking me this question.



That isn't actual evidence, though. For that to be actual evidence, you would have to prove that the two variables in question (offensive quality and defensive quality) have a statistically dependent relationship. You would to have to prove that when variable A (offensive quality) rises then variable B (defensive quality) plummets. You have not done that as well.

What you chose to do instead was take your original claim ("If points are up, defense is down"), phrase it in a slightly different way and try to pass it off as evidence. That's just circular reasoning.

So what is your point and what is your question. It seems your only point is you disagree with me that the NBA defense is bad. I provided you 4 articles, two of which have Paul George and Steve Kerr agreeing that the NBA defense is in rough shape. (It is). You disagree with it. Ok cool. I can't help you there.

So now you don't disagree with the idea that the NBA can't both have great offense and great defense league wide simultaneously. Wonderful. I never said every player and every team at all times were horrendous at defense either.

How can points be up WITHOUT defense being down? How else do you score points if not because your defense is giving them up? You can't answer that question it seems, only that you don't know if that can be true.

Well great. You have no answers for anything.

My point is simple:

Your "if points are up, defense is down" claim is nonsensical. It just doesn't work.

You wanna know why it doesn't work? It doesn't work due to its extreme reductiveness and simplicity. What you are basically trying to say here is that it's all about the result. That the only thing that matters is whether the ball went through the hoop or not. And that's simply not how we generally try to access quality.

If it was all about the result then this is good defense:

Watch on YouTube

And this is bad defense:

Watch on YouTube

Do you understand how why your claim makes no logical sense?

That's it. That's my point. That's why I replied to your posts. I didn't reply in order to try to change your mind on whether defense in today's NBA is good or not. I didn't reply in order to express my disagreement with your overall opinion. I replied because I wanted to comment on that specific point.

Feel free to enlightened me with factual antidotes as to why my claim doesn't make sense.

Something more than the results don't matter.

[dhsilv2]

Except that's not how evolution works like at all. It's an exceptionally slow process.

This era of basketball is different, and it's mostly because of rule changes, and that's fine.

Biological evolution is slow. But the term is used outside of biology pretty often. In terms of sports and technology, it's pretty fast moving.

Not really.

The three point line was first introduced to basketball in 1961. Stephen Curry wasn't drafted until 2009.

Nearly 50 years is a pretty long time actually!

Do you know what evolution is?

[dhsilv2]

Do you understand how why your claim makes no logical sense?

I think you're asking too much of him at this point. He's off making up stats even. He's trolling or has some disorders outside of just an ego or being stubborn.

[Nuntius]

So what is your point and what is your question. It seems your only point is you disagree with me that the NBA defense is bad. I provided you 4 articles, two of which have Paul George and Steve Kerr agreeing that the NBA defense is in rough shape. (It is). You disagree with it. Ok cool. I can't help you there.

So now you don't disagree with the idea that the NBA can't both have great offense and great defense league wide simultaneously. Wonderful. I never said every player and every team at all times were horrendous at defense either.

How can points be up WITHOUT defense being down? How else do you score points if not because your defense is giving them up? You can't answer that question it seems, only that you don't know if that can be true.

Well great. You have no answers for anything.

My point is simple:

Your "if points are up, defense is down" claim is nonsensical. It just doesn't work.

You wanna know why it doesn't work? It doesn't work due to its extreme reductiveness and simplicity. What you are basically trying to say here is that it's all about the result. That the only thing that matters is whether the ball went through the hoop or not. And that's simply not how we generally try to access quality.

If it was all about the result then this is good defense:

Watch on YouTube

And this is bad defense:

Watch on YouTube

Do you understand how why your claim makes no logical sense?

That's it. That's my point. That's why I replied to your posts. I didn't reply in order to try to change your mind on whether defense in today's NBA is good or not. I didn't reply in order to express my disagreement with your overall opinion. I replied because I wanted to comment on that specific point.

Feel free to enlightened me with factual antidotes as to why my claim doesn't make sense.

Something more than the results don't matter.

I think I already showcased why your claim doesn't make sense.

Your claim is that the only thing that matters is the end result, right? The Bulls didn't score on that fast-break so if we were using your claim to judge this possession, it would mean that the Knicks played good defense (regardless of the fact that the Bulls blew a 3-0 fast-break). Similarly, because Kawhi made that shot in the second clip, it means that the Sixers played bad defense, regardless of the fact that Embiid was draped all over Kawhi and that Kawhi himself was fading away and falling out of bounds. Because all that matters is the result, right?

That is my main issue with your claim. It is a reductive and black-and-white claim that doesn't leave any room for nuance.

[reddyplayerone]

Biological evolution is slow. But the term is used outside of biology pretty often. In terms of sports and technology, it's pretty fast moving.

Not really.

The three point line was first introduced to basketball in 1961. Stephen Curry wasn't drafted until 2009.

Nearly 50 years is a pretty long time actually!

Do you know what evolution is?

Do you?

[M2J]

I certainly enjoy the parity in the league the last few seasons. I also notice some all time bad teams as well, but even those teams have fun players for their fans to watch which is a key to a successful product overall. I think right now there's a decent amount of talent distribution and less max contracts out there to undeserved talent

I vote against expansion

[Lalouie]

It is abundantly clear by looking at the west. Historically the 1 vs 8 seed matchup is nearly a guaranteed series win for the 1 seed. 7 vs 2 isn't much better. Looking at the west, it wouldn't be completely shocking if the 9th or 10th seed (Lakers and Warriors) upset the 1 seed. It's isn't likely of course, but it wouldn't be a monumental shock like when an 8 seed upset a 1 seed in the past. I can see anybody ranked 1 through 10 in the west making it to the conference finals. A team with a healthy LeBron and AD is the freaking 9th seed. Back in the 90s a team led by mid-30s Malone and Stockton won the West two years in a row. Today a team with a healthy LeBron and AD can barely scratch the playoffs. Just think about that for a second.

The league is so deep now, from the superstars to the role players. It's clear that the talent is higher than it has ever been - and it isn't particularly close. I truly think the days of dynasty teams is over. There's just too much talent and parity now a days.

whenever anything expands there's less chance of dominance. expanding marks a growth in the meat of the bell curve not at the top - that's life. things don't actually get "better", the door is just wider

I happen to think it's NOT a good thing for sports but whatever

[Heej]

So basically the warriors are being used as a benchmark for how "talented" the league has become?

Um no

Give reggie miller moving screens and the green light... he would average 50

So a far lesser version of Curry is going to average more than prime Curry in this current era....

More nonsense.

Let's not underrate Reggie too much now. Yes Curry is a way better player; but scoring only Reggie has legitimate advantages such as size, first step (most underrated first step in NBA history and I'll die on this hill), and foul drawing ability.

That being said, he's not averaging 50. Nobody is averaging 50 in today's era, not even Jordan unless they play zero defense and give up 50 points on the other end to spam fastbreaks and early transition points which is dumb

He would be hard pressed to average more than Curry because Curry is an arguable GOAT ballhandler and under the rim finisher but Reggie's size and quickness advantage within modern schemes could easily outscore Curry in certain seasons depending on if he gets the same whistle he did in the 90s

[Nate505]

The talent in this league is undeniable now. I just can't stand the style of play today, so the talent level means little to me.

But yeah, there are 10th guys on the bench who would have been solid starters in the 90s, provided they could adapt to that style of play.

[G35]

It is abundantly clear by looking at the west. Historically the 1 vs 8 seed matchup is nearly a guaranteed series win for the 1 seed. 7 vs 2 isn't much better. Looking at the west, it wouldn't be completely shocking if the 9th or 10th seed (Lakers and Warriors) upset the 1 seed. It's isn't likely of course, but it wouldn't be a monumental shock like when an 8 seed upset a 1 seed in the past. I can see anybody ranked 1 through 10 in the west making it to the conference finals. A team with a healthy LeBron and AD is the freaking 9th seed. Back in the 90s a team led by mid-30s Malone and Stockton won the West two years in a row. Today a team with a healthy LeBron and AD can barely scratch the playoffs. Just think about that for a second.

The league is so deep now, from the superstars to the role players. It's clear that the talent is higher than it has ever been - and it isn't particularly close. I truly think the days of dynasty teams is over. There's just too much talent and parity now a days.

https://www.aol.com/argument-nba-mvp-americans-missing-144006058.html

"A viral quote from Connecticut women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma sums up perfectly when he told an audience about the state of America’s young player: “They’re more talented than ever, better athletes than ever, they can do more things than kids 10, 15, 20 years ago. But they’re not better basketball players.”

“Because this coach, or that coach, or that system, has them playing six games on Saturday and they practice just once that week. It’s totally opposite of what they do in Europe. They can all dribble. They can all pass. They can all shoot. Doesn’t matter if they’re 5-10 or 6-10. Because they practice, they don’t play games.”

This is a common complaint/observation among America’s top college baseball and soccer coaches, too. For decades this system was flawed, but not a problem until the Euros exposed the flaws."