How Good Were the '98 Jazz?

[youngcrev]

GSW would absolutely clobber those teams.

They would not have answer to Curry and Klay on the pick and roll. Their guards wouldn't know what to do with Curry and Klay coming off screens and shooting ridiculously wild 3 pointers.

You forget that the league had to adjust to GSW, not the other way around.

The death of the traditional center did not lead to GSW, GSW led to the death of the traditional center.

The league changed because GSW figured out the cheat code...3s are better than 2s. It didn't hurt that Curry is the GOAT shooter ever and you can probably make an argument for Klay being in the top 5 ever.

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

[Danny1616]

You've edited over your post.

Your last paragraph is all we need to know about how you feel.

Great shooters of the 1990s wouldnt be better players in today's league but great shooters of today's game would still dominate in the 90s

Over a myth that the defense was better in the 90s.

The defense was better there is no defense today.

No one said thst there wasnt ridiculous fouls.

You arent playing within the parameters of variables. You assume everything is equal and everything can not be.

Terrible reasoning.

What makes guys like Curry, Klay, KD etc. great players are not simply the fact that they are all-time shooters, it's that they are elite offensively.

Curry is one of the greatest off-ball players in NBA history and has one of the quickest releases of all time and can keep his efficiency up despite crazy range. The guy has incredible endurance, great awareness of where to go, and uses screens, is deadly on the pick and roll, uses head fakes very well, footwork etc. as good as anyone that has ever played. His ball-handling is also elite and he is very good at getting to the basket, and has an assortment of floaters that keep the defense worrying about what he's going to do. Not to mention that Curry is a very, very good passer, so it's difficult to double team him because he'll always usually make the right play. Not to mention that Curry is incredibly shifty as a player. This is what makes Curry a superstar player, not simply that he can just shoot. If you think Curry is just a great shooter, you really don't understand basketball that well.

That is why guys like Ingles, Korver, Ilyasova etc. are role players today even though they have great size and are excellent shooters.

So no, guys like Hornacek or Dell or Kerr etc. wouldn't be great players in today's game.

On the other hand, you hand excellent shooters like Mark Price, who was barely 6 feet tall, and wasn't athletic, dominate the NBA in the late 80s. Price was an elite 3 point shooter, who had a deadly mid-range game, was amazing on the pick and roll, had great ball-handling skills, was very shifty etc.

If there is no defense today then how did the Raptors win the championship last year? Also, defense was pretty bad throughout the 80s, and teams were scoring at a very, very rate. The most defensive era in NBA history was in the early 2000s.

Raptors won the finals because the elite offensive players you've mentioned more than once finally broke down physically after playing what equates to 1.2 seasons worth of playoffs in the 5 seasons combined.

And did so only so barely.

The rest of the stuff were just gonna disagree on.

So the great teams of the 80s and 90s weren't great offensively?

What about the showtime Lakers who had a run and gun offense?

Celtics had the best 3 point shooter in the league in Bird and McHale is one of the most skilled big man in NBA history.

Jordan was the best offensive player in the league during his prime.

Of course to win a championship you need both great offense and defense. Of course there are exceptions, but that's how it is. For example, Klay, KD and Draymond are all pretty damn good defenders. Bogut was also one of the best interior defenders in the NBA which really helped the Warriors in 2015 and 2016. Curry is also an underrated defender who is consistently among the league leaders in steals.

So you disagree that Curry doesn't have some other incredible skills other than shooting that makes him an MVP caliber player?

Explain to me why small skinny players like Mark Price and Kevin Johnson were perennial all-stars in the 1980s and 1990s?

The Barkley-Johnson-Majerle Suns in 1993 weren't considered a very good defensive team but made the finals that year.

Explain to me why the Suns in 1997 were able to run an offense with Nash, Kidd, and Kevin Johnson (all under 6'3), and still be a pretty damn good team that year?

I just don't find your reasoning that persuasive and I think people tend to over glorify the past.

[Danny1616]

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

[youngcrev]

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

What year was it that the SSOL took the league by storm, again? I feel like there was some type of rule change for that exact season. Can't come up with it...

The NBA is a copycat league, so teams are always going to try to emulate what's successful, which definitely pushes change. If your argument is that that has had a greater impact on the continued evolution of the game, ok. But that doesn't change that rule changes have also served as a major catalyst.

[AussieCeltic]

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

What year was it that the SSOL took the league by storm, again? I feel like there was some type of rule change for that exact season. Can't come up with it...

The NBA is a copycat league, so teams are always going to try to emulate what's successful, which definitely pushes change. If your argument is that that has had a greater impact on the continued evolution of the game, ok. But that doesn't change that rule changes have also served as a major catalyst.

Exactly. Hand checking eliminated in 2004 and we automatically see higher scores.

[Danny1616]

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

What year was it that the SSOL took the league by storm, again? I feel like there was some type of rule change for that exact season. Can't come up with it...

The NBA is a copycat league, so teams are always going to try to emulate what's successful, which definitely pushes change. If your argument is that that has had a greater impact on the continued evolution of the game, ok. But that doesn't change that rule changes have also served as a major catalyst.

The Mavericks, led by Nash and Dirk, had the best offense nearly every season in the early 2000s, so this wasn't some anomaly.

Dallas in 2003, for example, averaged twenty 3 pointers a game, far beyond the rest of the league. They ended up winning 60 games and had Dirk not got hurt in the conference finals, they have a real shot of beating the Spurs and would have steamrolled the Nets in the finals.

Even in 2004-2005, Suns led the league in 3 pointers, averaging 24 a game, but the rest of the league barely changed from the years before. The league had to catch up to what the Suns were doing in D'Antoni's system. That was beginning of a huge revolution in the league, and Curry's Warriors accelerated that to a whole new level.

There was even a brief period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, were the league regressed in 3 point shootings (partly due to the Suns playoff failures and the idea that 3 point shooting teams can't win championships). When Curry came along, became healthy, and Kerr took over in 2015, he took the 3 point era to a whole new level. The main reason why was because Curry could keep his efficiency, taking what was normally seen as low percentage shots. Then you saw teams like Houston go completely in the analytics realm and take it even further.

The average of points per game increased 95 in 2003 to 97 in 2005, not a major difference. After a brief rise in the late 2000s, we even saw it go down to 99 in 2011. In 2012 it went to 96 and in 2013 it went to 98. So why did the average points per game per team go down from 97 in 2005 to 96 in 2012 and only back up to 98 in 2013?

Then in 2015 we have the beginning of the real Curry Warriors era. The league average of points per game goes up to 100. But the Warriors average 110ppg with a league record 27 3s a game.

The next season in 2016, the league average is 102ppg, and Curry helps lead the Warriors to 114ppg with a staggering 31 3 pointers a game.

Then in 2017 you saw a huge jump to 105ppg with Houston averaging nearly 40 3 pointers a game.

This season teams average 111ppg.

I think the rule change had a minor impact, and it was about teams finally exploiting the utility of the 3 point line to its full advantage. You only could accelerate that growth with a generational shooter in Curry.

If you had a player like Curry in the 1990s pushing the boundaries of 3 point shooting way earlier and having success, we would have seen that evolution accelerate in the 90s instead. Teams were too afraid until the Warriors actually won the chip to fully embrace an offense primarily dictated by 3 point shooting. The common idea was that you live by the 3 and die by the 3, therefore 3 point shooting teams won't win chips.

[youngcrev]

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

What year was it that the SSOL took the league by storm, again? I feel like there was some type of rule change for that exact season. Can't come up with it...

The NBA is a copycat league, so teams are always going to try to emulate what's successful, which definitely pushes change. If your argument is that that has had a greater impact on the continued evolution of the game, ok. But that doesn't change that rule changes have also served as a major catalyst.

The Mavericks, led by Nash and Dirk, had the best offense nearly every season in the early 2000s, so this wasn't some anomaly.

Dallas in 2003, for example, averaged twenty 3 pointers a game, far beyond the rest of the league. They ended up winning 60 games and had Dirk not got hurt in the conference finals, they have a real shot of beating the Spurs and would have steamrolled the Nets in the finals.

Even in 2004-2005, Suns led the league in 3 pointers, averaging 24 a game, but the rest of the league barely changed from the years before. The league had to catch up to what the Suns were doing in D'Antoni's system. That was beginning of a huge revolution in the league, and Curry's Warriors accelerated that to a whole new level.

There was even a brief period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, were the league regressed in 3 point shootings (partly due to the Suns playoff failures and the idea that 3 point shooting teams can't win championships). When Curry came along, became healthy, and Kerr took over in 2015, he took the 3 point era to a whole new level. The main reason why was because Curry could keep his efficiency, taking what was normally seen as low percentage shots. Then you saw teams like Houston go completely in the analytics realm and take it even further.

The average of points per game increased 95 in 2003 to 97 in 2005, not a major difference. After a brief rise in the late 2000s, we even saw it go down to 99 in 2011. In 2012 it went to 96 and in 2013 it went to 98. So why did the average points per game per team go down from 97 in 2005 to 96 in 2012 and only back up to 98 in 2013?

Then in 2015 we have the beginning of the real Curry Warriors era. The league average of points per game goes up to 100. But the Warriors average 110ppg with a league record 27 3s a game.

The next season in 2016, the league average is 102ppg, and Curry helps lead the Warriors to 114ppg with a staggering 31 3 pointers a game.

Then in 2017 you saw a huge jump to 105ppg with Houston averaging nearly 40 3 pointers a game.

This season teams average 111ppg.

I think the rule change had a minor impact, and it was about teams finally exploiting the utility of the 3 point line to its full advantage. You only could accelerate that growth with a generational shooter in Curry.

If you had a player like Curry in the 1990s pushing the boundaries of 3 point shooting way earlier and having success, we would have seen that evolution accelerate in the 90s instead. Teams were too afraid until the Warriors actually won the chip to fully embrace an offense primarily dictated by 3 point shooting. The common idea was that you live by the 3 and die by the 3, therefore 3 point shooting teams won't win chips.

You're stating that the change was minor, but then your supporting argument has nothing to do with it.

It's simply easier to create space off the dribble and get into the lane when someone can't touch you. Mixed in with all the jokes and silliness here's a fairly decent demonstration by Kenny on how it's easier (ignore the Shaq/Charles would score a billion part).

Watch on YouTube

I mean, look at Harden exploiting the rules to an obnoxious (and extremely effective) level. He's taken things to the next level where not only can't you touch him, you have to be aware of where your hands are at all time because he'll just rip through and force contact.

[Galloisdaman]

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

If there was a Shaq to be drafted he would still go number 1 without question. Styles of play adjusted to not having a dominant big like Shaq. It wasn't players adjusting to styles. Guys like Shaq would always be dominant and they would not be asked to shoot 3's. Coaches will still be against ill advised 3 pointers or 2 pointers. They want guys that can make shots taking shots. If they can make the shot then its not ill advised.

[warriorschamps]

People can't make up their mind. Some have said GSW wasn't good enough to be title contenders in that era but the 1990s Jazz wasn't good enough to be title contenders in this era? Which one is it?

Anyone they are both BS. People just talking nonsense.

[warriorschamps]

If you need to ask, just go watch the 98 WCF finals on YouTube. On paper, the Lakers should have killed the Jazz. On paper, that was probably the most talented Lakers' roster of the Shaq/Kobe era, and more talented than perhaps any team today: Shaq, Eddie Jones, Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, with Van Exel and Kobe off the bench. (Would have been something to see Phil Jackson with that roster.)

Stockton and Malone aged really well. They weren't flashy, but both were outstanding 2-way players. More importantly, their games meshed together just perfectly. They might have been the best sum-is-greater-than-parts duo in the NBA history.

Exactly. I was an NBA fan back then. And all I heard before the games and series in 1997 and 1998 was how talented the Lakers were, how talented the Lakers were, how talented the Lakers were. The Lakers had a million all stars, blah, blah. And then the games started, lol! And the Lakers looked absolutely clueless and Stockton/Malone doing Stockton/Malone things executing to perfection. The Jazz always looked like a well oiled machine. The is a reason some folks thought they were going to beat the Bulls.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

[wickywack]

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong if you think the game is officiated the same now as it was in the 90s. It's not a myth that the game was more physical just because you found some random YouTuber that agrees with you.

Here's the rule that was put into place in '79:
"Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress."

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

It's a rule that has been amended/clarified many times over the years and enforced much differently during different periods. It wasn't until 04-05 that you saw it enforced as you see it today.

Jesus. What's next? Are you gonna post some video about the NFL being called the same way as it was? That QBs putting up numbers now is just a function of guys being way more talented now rather than rule changes impacting the game? Because it's pretty much the same for perimeter offensive players in the NBA.

I flat out disagree.

My argument is simply that people are overestimating how the rule changes impacted the game rather than the players impacting the game. I was not making the argument that the officiating is the exact same, but I think the evolution of the game is more due to the players and how teams operate offensively.

Yes the game has evolved and changed dramatically, but that was also largely due to the Nash led Suns under D'Antoni's revolutionary offense which exposed defenses.

Curry and the Warriors took that to a whole new level and showed that teams with slow flat footed big man would get exposed on the pick and roll and let Curry and Klay have an absolute field day hoisting 3s.

We've seen the game evolve multiple times due to dominant players.

When Jordan was the best, teams wanted the next Jordan and structured their teams accordingly. Remember before the Bulls era, the media was saying that no team could win with a shooting guard as their best player and how Jordan was not a championship player.

When Shaq was the best, teams were looking for the next great big man and structured their teams accordingly.

When the Suns were the most dominant team in the league between 2004 and 2007 (despite not winning a chip), teams needed to adjust accordingly.

The rise of analytics also played a huge impact in the way teams approach the game.

Before the Curry era, coaches would often berate players for taking ill-advised 3s and would prefer they get closer to the basket and shoot the mid-ranger. Now with the mathematical advantage of a lower percentage 3 pointer actually being more efficient than a higher percentage mid-ranger, teams have started adjust.

There is a lot I agree with here. Steph Curry is an anomaly. The NBA is a me too league. Folks see Curry shoot 3s and think it's a revolutionary strategy. Maybe a bit, but it's really more of a you-should-have-Steph-Curry-on-your-team strategy. There just aren't other Currys:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stephen-curry-is-the-revolution/

Drop Curry in some other era, and it's likely that he still dominates. But I wouldn't generalize from Curry.

The math of the 3 doesn't map nearly so well if you don't have Steph Curry. To look at it a different way, the point of an offense is to score, and great offenses maximize the amount they score every trip down the floor. If you look at teams historically by points per possession, Golden State is historically great, but, other then recent Houston teams, you've got 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, etc.

Those older era teams didn't dominate on offense with 3s. They dominated with offensive boards. In general, it's hard to find great 3pt shooting teams that also dominate the boards. Curry and GS shoot well enough that offensive boards don't matter so much. Not so much with their lesser copycats.

To get back to the Jazz, they had to deal with the anomalies of their era - e.g., Shaq. Staffing a roster of Ostertags - guys whose "skill" was fouling 6 times Shaq without too many and-1s - made a lot of sense. If you had a Shaq today, you'd have Ostertags to guard/foul him.

[r0drig0lac]

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

based on absolutely nothing

[MalonesElbows]

People can't make up their mind. Some have said GSW wasn't good enough to be title contenders in that era but the 1990s Jazz wasn't good enough to be title contenders in this era? Which one is it?

Anyone they are both BS. People just talking nonsense.

Well what rules are we using? Hand checking of perimeter players means Curry and Thompson would be no threat to drive and thus have their 3 point shots contested closer. Does their entire offense now fall apart because of that? You look at some smaller guards from the 90s with Curry like traits, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf would have been a 60% TS, 30 point scorer in todays NBA. In the hand check era he had to take mostly contested shots due to his lack of size and length. In 1998 Curry would put up numbers like prime Rauf did, 19 ppg at 54% TS.

Watch on YouTube

[Danny1616]

People can't make up their mind. Some have said GSW wasn't good enough to be title contenders in that era but the 1990s Jazz wasn't good enough to be title contenders in this era? Which one is it?

Anyone they are both BS. People just talking nonsense.

Well what rules are we using? Hand checking of perimeter players means Curry and Thompson would be no threat to drive and thus have their 3 point shots contested closer. Does their entire offense now fall apart because of that? You look at some smaller guards from the 90s with Curry like traits, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf would have been a 60% TS, 30 point scorer in todays NBA. In the hand check era he had to take mostly contested shots due to his lack of size and length. In 1998 Curry would put up numbers like prime Rauf did, 19 ppg at 54% TS.

Watch on YouTube

Terrible comparison.

Comparing a guy that never shot over 40% in his career from 3 and was a 35% from 3 shooter on average, to a guy that shoots nearly 45% on deep 3s, getting double teamed.

The big difference between the current era and past eras is that point guards were not expected to be primary scorers. Guys like Price and Nash could've averaged 30ppg if they played today. Guys like Price and Nash were only taking 3-4 threes a game, while guys like Curry are taking 10 threes a game.

It's more about the mentality of the game at the time, rather than the rules.

[jpengland]

Why does everyone underrate role players in the 90's but overrate current teams role playesr?

The best team in the league right now has Giannis/Middleton and then a bunch of crap. I mean I'm supposed to believe Wes fricken Matthews is great but Jeff Hornacek sucks? Come on

Ilyasova was 11th in MPG for the Bucks.

Adam Keefe was 5th for the Jazz.

[DirtyDez]

Simmons and Russillo were eviscerating Sloan for his decisions in both finals. In their defense it was recorded before he passed.