90s vs. modern defensive rules and Mythbusting

[StatLine]

That's some Bruce Blitz ish

[Mr Grant Hill]

the premise wasnt that it was easier to score. the premise was that it was easier to score for PERIMETER players. and more important, easier for perimeter players to easily get space and take shots.

FGA way up on the perimeter after the rules. and you also have less talented wing players taking shots, becuase, well they can get them.

the stats show it. perimeter scoring up. wing scoring for stars up. shot attempts for wing players in general up.

i dont think you can go by overall ppg/fg% to get good data on how a subset of players(wings) increased/decreased

yeah I got that wrong.
but I wouldn't really argue with perimeter shooting.
it was in the middle of the nineties when they first introduced handchecking rules and thus perimeter shooting exploded.
they introduced new rules in the 94-95 season and 3PAs went up 50% immediately. league average that season was 15.3 3PA per game, the first time teams averaged such a high value in the '00s was during the 04-05 season (again a season when they enforced handchecking rules).
furthermore, teams shot 35.9% from downtown in the 94-95 season, at that time that was by far the highest value since the 3-point-line was introduced (2nd highest back then: 33.6%).
so today you have guys taking 18 shots from downtown, shooting 35-36%.
and back then just in the middle of the 90s you had guys taking 15-16 shots from downtown, shooting 35-36%.
so you can't really use this as a proof of how rare or difficult perimeter shooting was back then.

[EscapoTHB]

I think it's clear the NBA made rule changes to try and make for a better game--it's hard to really disagree with the changes they made either.

They got rid of handchecking, which at that point they kind of had to because players had gotten too big and too strong--can you imagine a guy with Lebron's strength and speed being able to handcheck on top of everything else? Getting rid of handchecking got rid of some of the sumo wrestling that was passing as basketball in the late 90s.

Around I think 2001/2002 the NBA brought in zone defenses--so even though they took away handchecking they gave zone defenses back to the defenses. Now why did they do that? They did that because the NBA had become extremely iso-heavy, which with the lack of hand checking was making...again...for a boring product.

By putting in zone defense, the NBA allowed for a level of defensive sophistication that had before then not been seen. But it was a defense that you could beat if you moved the ball and attacked as a team. So the change was put in to try and create a more free flowing game.

I think my perspective on the 90s is that teams had so thoroughly ruined the game, that rule changes had to be put in place to close the gap until talent was able to fill in for all of the expansion.

It's only been the last 3 years that the talent is finally back up to snuff, and we're seeing some of the best ball since the late 80s. I've seen some people complain about the Heat/Thunder finals because it was a lot of iso ball--yeah sort of, but not NEARLY as much as teams were playing from like 98 to 2004. A team like the 2001 Sixers would NOT come out of the Eastern conference under the current setup.

IMO more than rule changes it's more insightful to look at the ebbs and flows that have accompanied expansion--and how it seems to take the league a decade or so to catch up with any kind of expansion.

If the early to mid 80s is the golden age, the silver age was late 80s to early 90s. And then things dropped off corresponding with the expansion in the late 80s with the Heat/Magic, and then more expansion in the mid 90s with the Raps and Grizzles. That level of expansion robbed most teams of any shot at accumulating the kind of power teams that made up the early to mid 80s.

But now with the influx of europeans, the game has finally started to catch up--and we're seeing super teams come back again. Teams with multiple Hall of Famers on them--just like in the glory days of the 80s. The Talent is finally supporting the number of teams. and it's corresponding with a rule system that favors ball movement, sophisticated and athletic defensive rotations, and players who have well rounded games.

It's good stuff.

I think it's important when we talk about the 90s incidentally to break up that era, because it is really two different eras. Maybe even 3. The pre-jordan retirement 90s are very much the last gasps of the golden age of the 80s. You're seeing teams with multiple greats going against each other--it's not quite isiah, magic, larry, dr. j, michael--but it's still pretty good. After the first Jordan retirement a lot of those greats aged out, and with expansion and career defining injuries to guys like Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway the mid to late 90s represents a regression of the game overall, and a slowing of the league's popularity because of it. Early 2000s you start to see some super teams start to be built in LA and San Antonio, and then in response to those the Celtics build a super team out East, which combined with the influx of european talent increasing the overall talent of the league--allowed for stuff like the Thunder and the Heatles.

Now you are looking about 6 super teams across the league at various states of their development. With contenders in all of the major markets. A LOT like the 80s.

The NBA is BACK baby.

[Rerisen]

Think you can blame Riley style thug ball for a lot of the changes that were pushed beginning in the late 90s. In combination with Michael's retirement and the subsequent ratings hit.

When casual fans were watching the transcendence of Michael Jordan overcome such brutal ball as played by the Bad Boys, Riley's Knicks, or later Heat, it made for great drama.

But when there was no amazing talent involved and it was just two such teams wrestling to a 69 to 65 point final score, and P.J Brown body slamming Charlie Ward WWE style, no casual fans wanted to watch that.

[bledredwine]

Think you can blame Riley style thug ball for a lot of the changes that were pushed beginning in the late 90s. In combination with Michael's retirement and the subsequent ratings hit.

When casual fans were watching the transcendence of Michael Jordan overcome such brutal ball as played by the Bad Boys, Riley's Knicks, or later Heat, it made for great drama.

But when there was no amazing talent involved and it was just two such teams wrestling to a 69 to 65 point final score, and P.J Brown body slamming Charlie Ward WWE style, no casual fans wanted to watch that.

Yeah, so true.

I remember a Bulls Knicks game where literally like 5 players were bleeding from the hard fouls.

[reapaman]

If it was easier to score after they introduced these rules -
why did the FG% go down from 45.0 (97-98) to 44.9 (99-00) to 44.3 (00-01)?
If it was easier to score after they introduced these rules -
why didn't it have an overall influence on PPG: 95.6 in 97-98, 94.8 in 00-01, 95.5 in 01-02, 95.1 in 02-03, 93.4 in 03-04 .
A "real" change - a change you can see in the stats - was strengthening the handchecking rules for the 04-05 season. With 93.4 PPG in 03-04 they literally had an alltime low in scoring and had to do something against it.

the premise wasnt that it was easier to score. the premise was that it was easier to score for PERIMETER players. and more important, easier for perimeter players to easily get space and take shots.

FGA way up on the perimeter after the rules. and you also have less talented wing players taking shots, becuase, well they can get them.

the stats show it. perimeter scoring up. wing scoring for stars up. shot attempts for wing players in general up.

i dont think you can go by overall ppg/fg% to get good data on how a subset of players(wings) increased/decreased

Yea but all of that are based on your intepretation. Are rose, westbrook, or even Jennings any different than Kevin Johnson who was able to do what he did back in the 90's (scored about the same and got way more foul calls in his favor than they ever did)? Why can't Kobe have numbers close to jordan or have a spike in production when Jordan made an almost 10 pt jump in his third season? Is it because you say Kobe isn't good enough to do it? Your telling me someone with Lebron james or tracy mcgrad'y talent couldn't score 30 ppg once or twice in the 90's, not every year but a couple of times at most? Your telling me that their scoring talents are in the range of chris mullin or mitch richmond? Are you serious?

Has anyone considered that perimeter scoring has gone up over the years mainly because the best players are now perimeter players like it was in the 80's when peimeter players led scoring for the most part. Mabey the big man crop over the last decade just suck soley because they sucked and not due to rule changes. Now we are getting a new crop of promising young big men that may change the landscape in a few years. Plus until recently most of the best perimeter players were the sole man on their team teams increasing their shots per game. Even before he started getting injured, Mcgrady's shots greatly decreased when he got with Yao. Durant's is decreasing the more Russell shoots. Kobe's went up alot after shaq and went down with Gasol. Lebron went down when he went to Miami. Is it really a big deal that durant won the scoring title at a wopping 28 ppg and 27.7 the season before.

Fouls and shots per game gotta go somewhere and if the big man are sucking than its the perimeter players taking the shots. I don't care what the rules "suggest" because that not fact, its your opinion. I mean besides stackhouse you guys aren't complaining about some 6'1 guy with average athletism scoring alot, you are talking about freaks of nature and top of the line talent like Lebron, Kobe, Mcgrady, and Durant. Perimeter scoring has been going down and will continue to go down most likely.

[bledredwine]

If it was easier to score after they introduced these rules -
why did the FG% go down from 45.0 (97-98) to 44.9 (99-00) to 44.3 (00-01)?
If it was easier to score after they introduced these rules -
why didn't it have an overall influence on PPG: 95.6 in 97-98, 94.8 in 00-01, 95.5 in 01-02, 95.1 in 02-03, 93.4 in 03-04 .
A "real" change - a change you can see in the stats - was strengthening the handchecking rules for the 04-05 season. With 93.4 PPG in 03-04 they literally had an alltime low in scoring and had to do something against it.

the premise wasnt that it was easier to score. the premise was that it was easier to score for PERIMETER players. and more important, easier for perimeter players to easily get space and take shots.

FGA way up on the perimeter after the rules. and you also have less talented wing players taking shots, becuase, well they can get them.

the stats show it. perimeter scoring up. wing scoring for stars up. shot attempts for wing players in general up.

i dont think you can go by overall ppg/fg% to get good data on how a subset of players(wings) increased/decreased

Yea but all of that are based on your intepretation. Are rose, westbrook, or even Jennings any different than Kevin Johnson who was able to do what he did back in the 90's (scored about the same and got way more foul calls in his favor than they ever did)? Why can't Kobe have numbers close to jordan or have a spike in production when Jordan made an almost 10 pt jump in his third season? Is it because you say Kobe isn't good enough to do it? Your telling me someone with Lebron james or tracy mcgrad'y talent couldn't score 30 ppg once or twice in the 90's, not every year but a couple of times at most? Your telling me that their scoring talents are in the range of chris mullin or mitch richmond? Are you serious?

Has anyone considered that perimeter scoring has gone up over the years mainly because the best players are now perimeter players like it was in the 80's when peimeter players led scoring for the most part. Mabey the big man crop over the last decade just suck soley because they sucked and not due to rule changes. Now we are getting a new crop of promising young big men that may change the landscape in a few years. Plus until recently most of the best perimeter players were the sole man on their team teams increasing their shots per game. Even before he started getting injured, Mcgrady's shots greatly decreased when he got with Yao. Durant's is decreasing the more Russell shoots. Kobe's went up alot after shaq and went down with Gasol. Lebron went down when he went to Miami. Is it really a big deal that durant won the scoring title at a wopping 28 ppg and 27.7 the season before.

Fouls and shots per game gotta go somewhere and if the big man are sucking than its the perimeter players taking the shots. I don't care what the rules "suggest" because that not fact, its your opinion. I mean besides stackhouse you guys aren't complaining about some 6'1 guy with average athletism scoring alot, you are talking about freaks of nature and top of the line talent like Lebron, Kobe, Mcgrady, and Durant. Perimeter scoring has been going down and will continue to go down most likely.

NO,

I already made the point that it's unusual Kobe had those jumps in scoring in his FIFTH season. That's abnormal. And Stackhouse the same.

It's perfectly normal for players to improve quickly in their first 3 seasons, but after that it's really unusual. Kobe literally wavered around the same points per 36 minutes, and then when the changes took effect, his scoring just spiked.

So you're telling me it's normal for Kobe to not improve that much, and have similar per 36 scoring numbers for his first 3 seasons, and then in his 4th and 5th seasons randomly improve by 5 points, by far his most with the exception of when Shaq left?

You can't explain that. Oh wait, you can.

Rule changes. And it is literally ALL ACROSS the board for these perimeter players. Feel free to explain why they all improved at the same time by 3-9 PPG.

And why didn't Stackhouse beast in the 90s if the talent got better? How do you have Jerry frickin Stackhouse leading the league in scoring with 30 PPG?

You haven't explained any of this.

[reapaman]

That would make perfect sense if Kobe didn't score 25 ppg the next season and in his first season without shaq, he scored 27.7 ppg. Plus what did it take him a year to adjust to the rule changes or something? What actually happened was that glen rice retired who was cutting heavily into his shots from the previous season, anyone that watched the Lakers at the time knows that. They didn't add anyone that would cut into his shots after rice left so Kobe took a good portion of those shots. No Glen rice = more oppurtunites to shoot = more ppg. Simple.

Jerry stackhouse first two seasons were 19 ppg and then 20 ppg and most of his seasons were like that or worse. So he has one 30 ppg season where he was able to chuck himself to death on a team where literrally no one scored which is the season after grant hill left. I could see if this was multiple times but this was one time. Wasn't even like he shot a good percentage even, it was horrible.

From what I seen its really on the top 10 - 15 or so that seen a change which I stated it was because it shifted from perimeter players from Low post guys due to a natural cycle. I mean Fga per game and PPG as a whole hasn't really changed that much since the mid and late 90's and certainly isn't anywhere close to what it was in the 80's and early 90's. I know your saying its just perimeter players seeing the spike but gauging on how many perimeter players thats in the league, league FGA per game would have had to increase by 3-4 in order to achieve what your suggesting and it has been far from that. Its really on the top 10 -15 or so players overall.

[albo23]

What's the point of starting a topic when you have a clear agenda and are unwilling to open yourself to opposing views?

[bledredwine]

What's the point of starting a topic when you have a clear agenda and are unwilling to open yourself to opposing views?

What's the point of posting if you don't have any evidence or basis for your "opposing view"?

People are saying "Oh, well players are better now."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This post gives you the truth, no matter how much you hate it.

And I'm sorry if it's bursted your bubble, sometimes the truth hurts. I'm more than willing to listen to arguments, but frankly no one has contested it. I see desperation and trolling, that's it. So unless you have reasons for literally ALL OF THE PERIMETER PLAYERS scores jumping over those 2 seasons, including the field goals attempted,

it's pretty obvious that this is the truth and it's just been proven for those that have no idea.

[albo23]

What's the point of starting a topic when you have a clear agenda and are unwilling to open yourself to opposing views?

What's the point of posting if you don't have any evidence or basis for your "opposing view"?

People are saying "Oh, well players are better now."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This post gives you the truth, no matter how much you hate it.

And I'm sorry if it's bursted your bubble, sometimes the truth hurts. I'm more than willing to listen to arguments, but frankly no one has contested it. I see desperation and trolling, that's it. So unless you have reasons for literally ALL OF THE PERIMETER PLAYERS scores jumping over those 2 seasons, including the field goals attempted,

it's pretty obvious that this is the truth and it's just been proven for those that have no idea.

I'm not arguing against any of your claims here, I am just saying you need to open yourself up to other ideas. Don't employ the "my way or the highway" method of argumentation. Example:

BTW<

feel free to include any related discussions esp. silly "GOAT" talk with Kobe Lebron KD whoever, or comparing these guys with Magic, the greatness of Kareem,

because I've got my belt strapped today and I'm ready to rock.

Clearly baiting and making yourself seem like a troll.

Thanks, sounds like you're butthurt and have nothing to say. I'm waiting for discussion, not anger reactions.... Right, you can't. Great contribution though, you showed me a whole lot that I didn't know before ... You've got nothing.

Is any of that really necessary? In what ways do comments like these improve an argument?

You have many good points here but it is unfortunately mired with ad hominem attacks and exaggerations.

[TheXFactor]

90's basketball was water downed.

The expansion teams ruined tha era of basketball. You didn't see any great teams in that era, compared to the 1980s. Bulls were not an overly superior talented team, with maybe the excetion of the 91 team, but had just enough to win, with the lackluster teams in that era.

Besides the Bulls

91 Lakers - shouldn't of made it with their age
92 Blazers - 1 star player in Drexler, I wouldn't couldn't consider him a super star
93 Suns - Barkley was a marquee player, KJ was a nice player, but that team had no defense
94 Rockets and Knicks - Worst finals ever, no one could hit an outside shot
95 Rockets swept the Magics - Hakeem swept Shaq, enteraining match up, but only 4 and out
96 Sonics - Payton and Kemp with trash around them, Frank Browkoski center
97-98 - Jazz were a well coached team, but didn't have the important 3rd guy to help out stockon and malone, Jazz best teams were in the 80s when they had Thurl Bailey
99 Suns - Duncan and Robinson were the offspring of a legit team finally

[LarsV8]

90's basketball was water downed.

The expansion teams ruined tha era of basketball. You didn't see any great teams in that era, compared to the 1980s. Bulls were not an overly superior talented team, with maybe the excetion of the 91 team, but had just enough to win, with the lackluster teams in that era.

Besides the Bulls

91 Lakers - shouldn't of made it with their age
92 Blazers - 1 star player in Drexler, I wouldn't couldn't consider him a super star
93 Suns - Barkley was a marquee player, KJ was a nice player, but that team had no defense
94 Rockets and Knicks - Worst finals ever, no one could hit an outside shot
95 Rockets swept the Magics - Hakeem swept Shaq, enteraining match up, but only 4 and out
96 Sonics - Payton and Kemp with trash around them, Frank Browkoski center
97-98 - Jazz were a well coached team, but didn't have the important 3rd guy to help out stockon and malone, Jazz best teams were in the 80s when they had Thurl Bailey
99 Suns - Duncan and Robinson were the offspring of a legit team finally

ROFL

pretty much everyone of those teams would **** all over teams today.

[jordan0386]

90's basketball was water downed.

The expansion teams ruined tha era of basketball. You didn't see any great teams in that era, compared to the 1980s. Bulls were not an overly superior talented team, with maybe the excetion of the 91 team, but had just enough to win, with the lackluster teams in that era.

Besides the Bulls

91 Lakers - shouldn't of made it with their age
92 Blazers - 1 star player in Drexler, I wouldn't couldn't consider him a super star
93 Suns - Barkley was a marquee player, KJ was a nice player, but that team had no defense
94 Rockets and Knicks - Worst finals ever, no one could hit an outside shot
95 Rockets swept the Magics - Hakeem swept Shaq, enteraining match up, but only 4 and out
96 Sonics - Payton and Kemp with trash around them, Frank Browkoski center
97-98 - Jazz were a well coached team, but didn't have the important 3rd guy to help out stockon and malone, Jazz best teams were in the 80s when they had Thurl Bailey
99 Suns - Duncan and Robinson were the offspring of a legit team finally

ROFL

pretty much everyone of those teams would **** all over teams today.

Only two of those teams listed are champions, so to think that they would 'easily' beat todays best is absurd.

[jordan0386]

90's basketball was water downed.

The expansion teams ruined tha era of basketball. You didn't see any great teams in that era, compared to the 1980s. Bulls were not an overly superior talented team, with maybe the excetion of the 91 team, but had just enough to win, with the lackluster teams in that era.

TOR and VAN came in for the 95-96 seaon.

96-99: Mike 3-peat. ten 60-win NBA teams. Jazz peak. Birth of Kobe/Shaq.

Whats that again about ruin?

[LarsV8]

Only two of those teams listed are champions, so to think that they would 'easily' beat todays best is absurd.

Champions or not, Barkley/KG Suns, Payton/Kemps Sonics, Malone/Stocktons Jazz, Elliot/Robinsons Spurs, Dream's Rockets, and Drexlers Spurs, Ewing's Knicks would wipe the floor with 95% of of todays teams.

No one is going to stop those dominant bigmen.

The NBA today is so watered down, it would be embarrassing.

[ibraheim718]

This should be pretty common knowledge, that the point of most recent era rule changes has been to increase scoring, free up the game more for the top superstars, with an intent to drive ratings.

Here's an article from after Kobe's 81 point game, making the point.

Scoring went down because skill level was plummeting and the fundamentals of players were eroding so in turn the scoring went down. And to an extremely smaller degree an infatuation with the 3pt line. If today the 3pt line were removed I believe scoring would go up a little just because of the mathematics behind it... guys wouldn't be shooting such a low percentage shot so much anymore.

[jordan0386]

Its a moot argument because a top tier team should hold their class over weaker opponents.

The question is can NON championship teams really beat champions of a different era. i dont see it as likely if they couldnt chip at their own time.

Iversons cross on Jordan shook up the world. Now imagine something like that happening on every possession in a cross era match. It isnt as cut and dry to think that the old school is beating the new school.

[jordan0386]

This should be pretty common knowledge, that the point of most recent era rule changes has been to increase scoring, free up the game more for the top superstars, with an intent to drive ratings.

Here's an article from after Kobe's 81 point game, making the point.

Scoring went down because skill level was plummeting and the fundamentals of players were eroding so in turn the scoring went down. And an extremely smaller degree an infatuation with the 3pt line. If today the 3pt line were removed I believe scoring would go up a little just because of the mathematics behind it... guys wouldn't be shooting such a low percentage shot so much anymore.

Actually scoring went down because team defenses peaked. Look at the coaching and the athleticism of 00-05. There was some stingy defense being played.

Skill level arguments and fundamental blah blah blah is baseless because LAL won 3 in a row. Kobe was skill-less at the time? Tracy had no game?

"Eroding" lol. Smh.

[ibraheim718]

This should be pretty common knowledge, that the point of most recent era rule changes has been to increase scoring, free up the game more for the top superstars, with an intent to drive ratings.

Here's an article from after Kobe's 81 point game, making the point.

Scoring went down because skill level was plummeting and the fundamentals of players were eroding so in turn the scoring went down. And an extremely smaller degree an infatuation with the 3pt line. If today the 3pt line were removed I believe scoring would go up a little just because of the mathematics behind it... guys wouldn't be shooting such a low percentage shot so much anymore.

Actually scoring went down because team defenses peaked. Look at the coaching and the athleticism of 00-05. There was some stingy defense being played.

Skill level arguments and fundamental blah blah blah is baseless because LAL won 3 in a row. Kobe was skill-less at the time? Tracy had no game?

"Eroding" lol. Smh.

If you argument is to use two of the best in the game at the time then I'll blah blah blah you right back.

Take the menial average NBA player even today and look at his FG% and FT% and just overall fundamental knowledge of how to play the game and compare him to a player of the 80's and you'll see the difference in skill level I'm talking about. And we're talking about the period of basketball just before the rule changes also.