What former players get completely WRONG about today's NBA

[70sFan]

I don’t believe that for a moment.

So you think everyone who disagrees with you is a biased fool? Convincing, I must admit...

Let’s include allstar games as well, to prove a point about the state of the NBA and direction it took as entertainment.

Why should I care about all-star games? AS games are joke from at least mid-80s.

Nope, but when someone can’t admit that something blatantly obvious and intended for one purpose such as rule changes exists and had an impact on the game, I can’t take their opinions without the knowledge that they’re significantly biased. And that makes sense. Thats strange if you’re unaware of your bias.

I am more aware of rules changes history than you. I am well aware that it all started way before 2005. I am also aware of the influence of rules changes on basketball style and I've been very critical on many of them in the past (and I still am). I am also aware that there is more to the style changing than just that.

Are you aware of your own bias by the way?

[bledredwine]

You guys are not going to like his, but most people don’t find drive and kick basketball interesting. It doesn’t matter how complex the team defense has to be to try and make up for the obvious lack of defense allowed. It’s still a you-can’t-touch, half of the game (offense) spamming league. If you like that, great. I never enjoyed games like Diablo where you kill hundreds of creatures and prefer more variance and nuance myself.

And that’s what all of the professional players who understand the game better than you see and have been talking about.

[70sFan]

You guys are not going to like his, but most people don’t find drive and kick basketball interesting. It doesn’t matter how complex the team defense has to be to try and make up for the obvious lack of defense allowed. It’s still a you-can’t-touch, half of the game (offense) spamming league. If you like that, great. I never enjoyed games like Diablo where you kill hundreds of creatures and prefer more variance and nuance myself.

And that’s what all of the professional players who understand the game better than you see and have been talking about.

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

[bledredwine]

You guys are not going to like his, but most people don’t find drive and kick basketball interesting. It doesn’t matter how complex the team defense has to be to try and make up for the obvious lack of defense allowed. It’s still a you-can’t-touch, half of the game (offense) spamming league. If you like that, great. I never enjoyed games like Diablo where you kill hundreds of creatures and prefer more variance and nuance myself.

And that’s what all of the professional players who understand the game better than you see and have been talking about.

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

[70sFan]

You guys are not going to like his, but most people don’t find drive and kick basketball interesting. It doesn’t matter how complex the team defense has to be to try and make up for the obvious lack of defense allowed. It’s still a you-can’t-touch, half of the game (offense) spamming league. If you like that, great. I never enjoyed games like Diablo where you kill hundreds of creatures and prefer more variance and nuance myself.

And that’s what all of the professional players who understand the game better than you see and have been talking about.

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Your video is fine because it suita your agenda, the OP is wrong because it doesn't (even though you can't even argue against it in rational way).

As far as I know, Denver have more players than Jokic. I can also name plenty of other teams that don't rely on drive and kick. Besides, in this discussion the origins of skilled players doesn't matter - NBA is international these days anyway. I am not from the US, so I don't care for American players being better - I just want the whole product to be good. If international players make the league better then it's good, because we have more international players than ever before.

You can dislike modern product, nobody forces you to like it. You truly don't need to create silly narratives to back it up.

[bledredwine]

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Your video is fine because it suita your agenda, the OP is wrong because it doesn't (even though you can't even argue against it in rational way).

As far as I know, Denver have more players than Jokic. I can also name plenty of other teams that don't rely on drive and kick. Besides, in this discussion the origins of skilled players doesn't matter - NBA is international these days anyway. I am not from the US, so I don't care for American players being better - I just want the whole product to be good. If international players make the league better then it's good, because we have more international players than ever before.

You can dislike modern product, nobody forces you to like it. You truly don't need to create silly narratives to back it up.

See, so you are biased.

There's as little agenda in that video as you can see in this type of video, but to explain why everyone is turned off while showing that there's possibility for positive change. I disagree with many of his assertions, but you'd be remiss to try and disprove about 80% of his points in that video. Simply put, you're a fan of the modern game and you are biased (like him, by the way... big fan of the modern game). We both are, and if you deny that or I deny that, it's ignorant. We both already knew this from past discussions.

Your beliefs are not 100% nor are anyones, and they're constantly being reenforced by your bias. You'll see through only the lens you desire. To me, that video looked as objective as can be and even called players now more talented. It simply described why everyone aside from big fans are turned off from the current NBA, and that is something that you can't deny.

I've never seen this much talk over how boring a league is in comparison to its prior states.

If that video bothers you? I can find videos that are way, way worse, especially when dissecting rule changes.

And now, you probably have a better understanding of why I chose not to watch that ridiculous video in this thread for 23 minutes, right?

[70sFan]

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Your video is fine because it suita your agenda, the OP is wrong because it doesn't (even though you can't even argue against it in rational way).

As far as I know, Denver have more players than Jokic. I can also name plenty of other teams that don't rely on drive and kick. Besides, in this discussion the origins of skilled players doesn't matter - NBA is international these days anyway. I am not from the US, so I don't care for American players being better - I just want the whole product to be good. If international players make the league better then it's good, because we have more international players than ever before.

You can dislike modern product, nobody forces you to like it. You truly don't need to create silly narratives to back it up.

See, so you are biased.

There's no agenda in that video. I disagree with many of his assertions, but you'd be remiss to try and disprove about 80% of his points in that video. Simply put, you're a fan of the modern game and you are biased.

I haven't watched the video yet, I am not saying it's wrong because I haven't watched it. I am simply pointing out that you picked this video because you like the narrative provided, unlike the video in the OP.

If you are unbiased then argue against the points provided in the video. Don't accuse everyone of being biased, use rational arguments.

[bledredwine]

Your video is fine because it suita your agenda, the OP is wrong because it doesn't (even though you can't even argue against it in rational way).

As far as I know, Denver have more players than Jokic. I can also name plenty of other teams that don't rely on drive and kick. Besides, in this discussion the origins of skilled players doesn't matter - NBA is international these days anyway. I am not from the US, so I don't care for American players being better - I just want the whole product to be good. If international players make the league better then it's good, because we have more international players than ever before.

You can dislike modern product, nobody forces you to like it. You truly don't need to create silly narratives to back it up.

See, so you are biased.

There's no agenda in that video. I disagree with many of his assertions, but you'd be remiss to try and disprove about 80% of his points in that video. Simply put, you're a fan of the modern game and you are biased.

I haven't watched the video yet, I am not saying it's wrong because I haven't watched it. I am simply pointing out that you picked this video because you like the narrative provided, unlike the video in the OP.

If you are unbiased then argue against the points provided in the video. Don't accuse everyone of being biased, use rational arguments.

Then shouldn't I laugh just as you did when I chose not to watch the first video? I at least gave it a chance.

And you're absolutely wrong. I posted that because I believed it was objective enough that you'd actually like it. But instead,
you followed your bias and decided not to click simply because of the thumbnail that you didn't enjoy.

See the irony here.

A. Laugh because I didn't watch, despite me getting 4 minutes through

B. Claiming you're not biased, which is ridiculous for anyone to say to begin with.

C. Choosing not to watch the video I watched, which apparently deserves a laugh, and then not even giving it a chance (due to your bias), disproving your logic behind both A and B.

And that is why I can't take your analysis seriously, shall you choose to make it.

[70sFan]

Then shouldn't I laugh just as you did when I chose not to watch the first video? I at least gave it a chance.

No, because you commented the thread about the video you haven't watched and kept talking about it being silly. I haven't joined the discussion about different video.

And you're absolutely wrong. I posted that because I believed it was objective enough that you'd actually like it. But instead,
you followed your bias and decided not to click simply because of the thumbnail that you didn't enjoy.

No, I didn't click on it because I am on a walk with my dog I will watch the video when I come back home.

See the irony here.

A. Laugh because I didn't watch, despite me getting 4 minutes through

I didn't laugh at you because you didn't watch, I laughed because you criticized the video you haven't watched and you don't have any contrarguments to defend your claims.

B. Claiming you're not biased, which is ridiculous for anyone to say to begin with.

I said I am not biased towards any particular era, not that I have no biases whatsoever. I am biased for number of things, like post up game, rim protection, rebounding skills, 1960s refereeing or aesthetics of the 1970s game - but it doesn't cloud my evaluation of certain eras. I entertain all NBA eras and I like watching games from all seasons. I have no problem admitting that modern era is more complex, just like I have no problems with the fact that earlier eras had better officiating rules.

C. Choosing not to watch the video I watched, which apparently deserves a laugh, and then not even giving it a chance (due to your bias), disproving your logic behind both A and B.

Or due to being outside home, you know?

[70sFan]

You guys are not going to like his, but most people don’t find drive and kick basketball interesting. It doesn’t matter how complex the team defense has to be to try and make up for the obvious lack of defense allowed. It’s still a you-can’t-touch, half of the game (offense) spamming league. If you like that, great. I never enjoyed games like Diablo where you kill hundreds of creatures and prefer more variance and nuance myself.

And that’s what all of the professional players who understand the game better than you see and have been talking about.

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Just watched the video, it's indeed very curious and well put video but I struggle to understand the point of providing it to this discussion. This point comes from marketability point of view, it doesn't touch what happens on the basketball court

[bledredwine]

Tell me more about Denver playing drive and kick all the time.

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Just watched the video, it's indeed very curious and well put video but I struggle to understand the point of providing it to this discussion. This point comes from marketability point of view, it doesn't touch what happens on the basketball court

Hey, major respect for watching it and giving it a try regardless.

My reasoning was just to show that those of us who are sick and disappointed in the league have valid reasons, even if not obvious.

[Fencer reregistered]

Post games were much more sophisticated as well.

What's the evidence for this?

I'll be honest dude, you should maybe think about why this was a silly request. If you really don't know just watch an old game, post play and positioning used to be more critical on both sides of the ball.

Offensively that's probably true. Low post scoring was much more sophisticated, and no modern developments outweigh that.

But the much greater sophistication of modern defenses doesn't have some kind of special exemption for post defense.

[70sFan]

Here's a video about why everyone jaded with the modern NBA that's actually well thought out and less biased.

He's a fan of the modern game so I often disagree with him, but he isn't on a mission like most people making videos. This actually makes sense, unlike that original video.

Watch on YouTube

Notice that you pointed out Denver, which proves my point. Only the international players like Jokic, Luka etc. who played in different leagues have the skillsets needed and post games that we love from the 90s. Most teams are drive and kick, because that's all you need to get by.

Just watched the video, it's indeed very curious and well put video but I struggle to understand the point of providing it to this discussion. This point comes from marketability point of view, it doesn't touch what happens on the basketball court

Hey, major respect for watching it and giving it a try regardless.

My reasoning was just to show that those of us who are sick and disappointed in the league have valid reasons, even if not obvious.

Never said you have no reasons to dislike the current league, but I don't think it has anything to do with the lack of variety or creativity in the game itself.

[HotelVitale]

So you think everyone who disagrees with you is a biased fool? Convincing, I must admit... Why should I care about all-star games? AS games are joke from at least mid-80s.

Nope, but when someone can’t admit that something blatantly obvious and intended for one purpose such as rule changes exists and had an impact on the game, I can’t take their opinions without the knowledge that they’re significantly biased. And that makes sense. Thats strange if you’re unaware of your bias.

I am more aware of rules changes history than you. I am well aware that it all started way before 2005. I am also aware of the influence of rules changes on basketball style and I've been very critical on many of them in the past (and I still am). I am also aware that there is more to the style changing than just that.

Bledred, do you think you could sketch out a small case showing how rule changes from the mid 90s to today had a direct impact on the style of the league? I'm open-minded about it and am always up for following the evidence, but haven't seen anything convincing making that point.

The only attempts at arguments I've seen when I've looked online are very superficial correlation things--the NBA changed X or Y rule at the same time that offensive efficiency increased, therefore that rule led to those changes. That's not how you make these type of arguments. (Also the things that I've seen do make a difference--e.g. the restricted circle--don't get talked about much.)

EDIT: also one thing to be careful about is that the NBA abolsutely 100% DID want to make the game quicker in the early 2000s. But logically and in terms of historical analysis that absolutely doesn't mean that the reason that change happened was because of a few things the NBA changed. Very common thing in history--a politician will make some economic or social laws to reach an end they want to achieve, but in retrospect everyone agrees that these laws didn't play much of a role in the larger and more comprehensive historic change that happened.

[kcktiny]

I know the 1970s is the greatest era, so please choose one game from 1978 to take a look at what happens on the court. We can compare that to Ben examples.

Pick any 70s game you want.

But if you want to talk about extremely fast, pick a Denver Nuggets game from 1980-81 to 1983-84. They averaged between 111-114 poss/48min. And back then they were considered to be running a motion offense.

Compare that to the 7 seconds or less Phoenix Suns who averaged just 96-98 poss/48min. That early to mid 80s Nuggets team averaged close to 4 more team possessions per quarter than did those Suns team.

And they were awful defensively. If you want to see teams that excelled on defense during that same time pick a Milwaukee Bucks or Philadelphia 76ers game from 1980-81 to 1983-84.

That Suns team of 2004-05 to 2006-07 had the fastest game pace of all teams those 3 seasons at 96.6 poss/48min. But that fastest game pace then is slower than the slowest game pace of any team today (Brooklyn at 97.0 poss/48min).

And this statement:

The game is extremely fast and complex today compared to prior eras... there are more passes than ever... the entire game is quicker

Simply reeks of ignorance. Everyone wants "their" era to be special. The NBA today is not faster now than it ever was nor does it throw more passes now than it ever did.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

And this is categorically false:

Do you know why it's so hard to defend? Because teams are way more skilled at exploiting openings than ever before.

The main reason it's harder to defend now - and the key reason why the average team pts/poss is the highest it's ever been the past 2+ seasons, inferring better offense and worse defense - is the rule changes and how those rules are being applied.

There are no more hard fouls (they're penalized as flagrants), no more hand checking, no 3 to make 2 FTAs and just 2 FTAs for being fouled on a 3pt attempt, and traveling, palming, and double dribbling are not called like, nor as much, as they used to be. This not to mention clear path fouls.

Plus more than a decade ago the league changed the call for traveling from one and a half steps to two steps:

https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4563546

This makes it incredibly hard for players to defend like they did prior to this change.

[Doctor MJ]

See, so you are biased.

There's no agenda in that video. I disagree with many of his assertions, but you'd be remiss to try and disprove about 80% of his points in that video. Simply put, you're a fan of the modern game and you are biased.

I haven't watched the video yet, I am not saying it's wrong because I haven't watched it. I am simply pointing out that you picked this video because you like the narrative provided, unlike the video in the OP.

If you are unbiased then argue against the points provided in the video. Don't accuse everyone of being biased, use rational arguments.

Then shouldn't I laugh just as you did when I chose not to watch the first video? I at least gave it a chance.

And you're absolutely wrong. I posted that because I believed it was objective enough that you'd actually like it. But instead,
you followed your bias and decided not to click simply because of the thumbnail that you didn't enjoy.

See the irony here.

A. Laugh because I didn't watch, despite me getting 4 minutes through

B. Claiming you're not biased, which is ridiculous for anyone to say to begin with.

C. Choosing not to watch the video I watched, which apparently deserves a laugh, and then not even giving it a chance (due to your bias), disproving your logic behind both A and B.

And that is why I can't take your analysis seriously, shall you choose to make it.

So, I'm not sure if me responding here is at all helpful, but I gotta say:

bledredwine, you set yourself up to not be taken seriously when you choose to say that the video in question was too long for you, while talking about a sport which has games more than twice as long as that video. My guess is that you just being snide when you complained about the video length, so it's not like I actually believe you couldn't watch a video that long...

but between Ben Taylor and 70sFan, you're talking about two guys who regularly watch absolutely insane amounts of basketball of all eras, and have proven chops in terms of analyzing the game in vastly greater detail than the level of this board. To not simply look to dismiss their analysis, but to do so implying that you don't have the attention span to even begin to take this stuff seriously, really undermines your credibility.

So I'd advise you to take a step back, and take a different approach.

It is perfectly fine for you to not like the modern game for whatever reason, but when you start giving specific reasons and people who take basketball analysis way more seriously than you on a daily basis push back, you're not going to end up looking great trying to sling mud at them.

Doesn't mean they are right and your wrong about any given point, but in terms of the question being discussed in the video of whether - say - guys like Shaq & Pierce really understand what's going on in the modern game, it's really not a question. They don't, because they've chosen a cynical approach that glorifies their own ego rather than humbly keeping up with developments.

Frankly, I think it's absolutely find for a given fan to not keep up with the developments and long for what the game used to be, but the thing is that as with Shaq & Pierce, most fans don't actually want to admit that they are confused by what's going on strategically nowadays, and this tends to lead them down an analogous path where they embrace a reason for their disengagement that makes them feel like they understand everything and can look down on the game today.

For myself, as someone who was among the very first people on here pointing out what was going on with pace & space, I'm absolutely humbled trying to understand everything that's happening today. The decision making in the game moves so fast that there's much I can't process in real time, leaving me either needing to pause & rewind repeatedly, or accept that there's a lot I'm just missing, and look to keep learning from others who have made the commitment to really keep up with the arms race.

Many know that Taylor was a core member of the PC Board community back in the day, and he & I started blogs around the same time where we'd reference each other. He always had better eyes for seeing the game in real time than I did, but the gap didn't used to be so big. Then he made it into his career while I focused on a different career (teaching), and now the gap between us is a canyon. It is what it is. I can either get in my ego about it, or I can choose to learn from whoever can teach me more. I try to choose the latter.

[ScrantonBulls]

I haven't watched the video yet, I am not saying it's wrong because I haven't watched it. I am simply pointing out that you picked this video because you like the narrative provided, unlike the video in the OP.

If you are unbiased then argue against the points provided in the video. Don't accuse everyone of being biased, use rational arguments.

Then shouldn't I laugh just as you did when I chose not to watch the first video? I at least gave it a chance.

And you're absolutely wrong. I posted that because I believed it was objective enough that you'd actually like it. But instead,
you followed your bias and decided not to click simply because of the thumbnail that you didn't enjoy.

See the irony here.

A. Laugh because I didn't watch, despite me getting 4 minutes through

B. Claiming you're not biased, which is ridiculous for anyone to say to begin with.

C. Choosing not to watch the video I watched, which apparently deserves a laugh, and then not even giving it a chance (due to your bias), disproving your logic behind both A and B.

And that is why I can't take your analysis seriously, shall you choose to make it.

So, I'm not sure if me responding here is at all helpful, but I gotta say:

bledredwine, you set yourself up to not be taken seriously when you choose to say that the video in question was too long for you, while talking about a sport which has games more than twice as long as that video. My guess is that you just being snide when you complained about the video length, so it's not like I actually believe you couldn't watch a video that long...

but between Ben Taylor and 70sFan, you're talking about two guys who regularly watch absolutely insane amounts of basketball of all eras, and have proven chops in terms of analyzing the game in vastly greater detail than the level of this board. To not simply look to dismiss their analysis, but to do so implying that you don't have the attention span to even begin to take this stuff seriously, really undermines your credibility.

So I'd advise you to take a step back, and take a different approach.

It is perfectly fine for you to not like the modern game for whatever reason, but when you start giving specific reasons and people who take basketball analysis way more seriously than you on a daily basis push back, you're not going to end up looking great trying to sling mud at them.

Doesn't mean they are right and your wrong about any given point, but in terms of the question being discussed in the video of whether - say - guys like Shaq & Pierce really understand what's going on in the modern game, it's really not a question. They don't, because they've chosen a cynical approach that glorifies their own ego rather than humbly keeping up with developments.

Frankly, I think it's absolutely find for a given fan to not keep up with the developments and long for what the game used to be, but the thing is that as with Shaq & Pierce, most fans don't actually want to admit that they are confused by what's going on strategically nowadays, and this tends to lead them down an analogous path where they embrace a reason for their disengagement that makes them feel like they understand everything and can look down on the game today.

For myself, as someone who was among the very first people on here pointing out what was going on with pace & space, I'm absolutely humbled trying to understand everything that's happening today. The decision making in the game moves so fast that there's much I can't process in real time, leaving me either needing to pause & rewind repeatedly, or accept that there's a lot I'm just missing, and look to keep learning from others who have made the commitment to really keep up with the arms race.

Many know that Taylor was a core member of the PC Board community back in the day, and he & I started blogs around the same time where we'd reference each other. He always had better eyes for seeing the game in real time than I did, but the gap didn't used to be so big. Then he made it into his career while I focused on a different career (teaching), and now the gap between us is a canyon. It is what it is. I can either get in my ego about it, or I can choose to learn from whoever can teach me more. I try to choose the latter.

I know I may get a strike for this, but nobody takes him seriously bevause of what you outlined. He's complaining about watching a "long" video, while posting a video of his own for people to watch. The crux of his arguments are videos from YouTube accounts that are dedicated to hating LeBron. He regularly makes up completely false claims and straight up lies alto support his view. He lied about 4 different statistics in a recent post of his (about MJ vs LeBron, shockingly).

He won't watch or consider anything that goes against his viewpoint and agenda. He's so determined to prove to himself and others that MJ is the absolute greatest. He has to convince himself that the league is trash now and that LeBron isn't that great because he has a pathological need to prove to everybody that Jordan is a god.

Honestly, it's kind of sad... I don't know why he bothers watching or posting when he hates the game and when nobody takes what he says seriously.

[bledredwine]

I haven't watched the video yet, I am not saying it's wrong because I haven't watched it. I am simply pointing out that you picked this video because you like the narrative provided, unlike the video in the OP.

If you are unbiased then argue against the points provided in the video. Don't accuse everyone of being biased, use rational arguments.

Then shouldn't I laugh just as you did when I chose not to watch the first video? I at least gave it a chance.

And you're absolutely wrong. I posted that because I believed it was objective enough that you'd actually like it. But instead,
you followed your bias and decided not to click simply because of the thumbnail that you didn't enjoy.

See the irony here.

A. Laugh because I didn't watch, despite me getting 4 minutes through

B. Claiming you're not biased, which is ridiculous for anyone to say to begin with.

C. Choosing not to watch the video I watched, which apparently deserves a laugh, and then not even giving it a chance (due to your bias), disproving your logic behind both A and B.

And that is why I can't take your analysis seriously, shall you choose to make it.

So, I'm not sure if me responding here is at all helpful, but I gotta say:

bledredwine, you set yourself up to not be taken seriously when you choose to say that the video in question was too long for you, while talking about a sport which has games more than twice as long as that video. My guess is that you just being snide when you complained about the video length, so it's not like I actually believe you couldn't watch a video that long...

but between Ben Taylor and 70sFan, you're talking about two guys who regularly watch absolutely insane amounts of basketball of all eras, and have proven chops in terms of analyzing the game in vastly greater detail than the level of this board. To not simply look to dismiss their analysis, but to do so implying that you don't have the attention span to even begin to take this stuff seriously, really undermines your credibility.

So I'd advise you to take a step back, and take a different approach.

It is perfectly fine for you to not like the modern game for whatever reason, but when you start giving specific reasons and people who take basketball analysis way more seriously than you on a daily basis push back, you're not going to end up looking great trying to sling mud at them.

Doesn't mean they are right and your wrong about any given point, but in terms of the question being discussed in the video of whether - say - guys like Shaq & Pierce really understand what's going on in the modern game, it's really not a question. They don't, because they've chosen a cynical approach that glorifies their own ego rather than humbly keeping up with developments.

Frankly, I think it's absolutely find for a given fan to not keep up with the developments and long for what the game used to be, but the thing is that as with Shaq & Pierce, most fans don't actually want to admit that they are confused by what's going on strategically nowadays, and this tends to lead them down an analogous path where they embrace a reason for their disengagement that makes them feel like they understand everything and can look down on the game today.

For myself, as someone who was among the very first people on here pointing out what was going on with pace & space, I'm absolutely humbled trying to understand everything that's happening today. The decision making in the game moves so fast that there's much I can't process in real time, leaving me either needing to pause & rewind repeatedly, or accept that there's a lot I'm just missing, and look to keep learning from others who have made the commitment to really keep up with the arms race.

Many know that Taylor was a core member of the PC Board community back in the day, and he & I started blogs around the same time where we'd reference each other. He always had better eyes for seeing the game in real time than I did, but the gap didn't used to be so big. Then he made it into his career while I focused on a different career (teaching), and now the gap between us is a canyon. It is what it is. I can either get in my ego about it, or I can choose to learn from whoever can teach me more. I try to choose the latter.

No one poster has superiority to another and I’m sorry to say, but it’s hard to take several that main the PC forum posters seriously to begin with as it is the most agenda-driven forum I have come across in decades of posting. I’m a mirror when it comes to that whole group. That said, 70s is a fine poster comparatively but I can’t agree with him in this thread and he’s mistaken if he’s trying to claim that he’s objective.

Sure, the game is nuanced now as all sports are (boxing amazes me), but it was nuanced in the 90s as well. There’s no doubt that a big chunk of it has been minimized and converted to face up play and threes though. To each their own, but I disagree with what 70s said here and if I watch a portion of a video and it sounds ridiculous and biased, I can choose to stop watching.

That video started off claiming that 90s ball was often stagnant and boring. Why should I take that seriously with such a ridiculous statement?

[ScrantonBulls]

Nope, but when someone can’t admit that something blatantly obvious and intended for one purpose such as rule changes exists and had an impact on the game, I can’t take their opinions without the knowledge that they’re significantly biased. And that makes sense. Thats strange if you’re unaware of your bias.

I am more aware of rules changes history than you. I am well aware that it all started way before 2005. I am also aware of the influence of rules changes on basketball style and I've been very critical on many of them in the past (and I still am). I am also aware that there is more to the style changing than just that.

Bledred, do you think you could sketch out a small case showing how rule changes from the mid 90s to today had a direct impact on the style of the league? I'm open-minded about it and am always up for following the evidence, but haven't seen anything convincing making that point.

The only attempts at arguments I've seen when I've looked online are very superficial correlation things--the NBA changed X or Y rule at the same time that offensive efficiency increased, therefore that rule led to those changes. That's not how you make these type of arguments. (Also the things that I've seen do make a difference--e.g. the restricted circle--don't get talked about much.)

EDIT: also one thing to be careful about is that the NBA abolsutely 100% DID want to make the game quicker in the early 2000s. But logically and in terms of historical analysis that absolutely doesn't mean that the reason that change happened was because of a few things the NBA changed. Very common thing in history--a politician will make some economic or social laws to reach an end they want to achieve, but in retrospect everyone agrees that these laws didn't play much of a role in the larger and more comprehensive historic change that happened.

I'm interested in this as well

[bledredwine]

Nope, but when someone can’t admit that something blatantly obvious and intended for one purpose such as rule changes exists and had an impact on the game, I can’t take their opinions without the knowledge that they’re significantly biased. And that makes sense. Thats strange if you’re unaware of your bias.

I am more aware of rules changes history than you. I am well aware that it all started way before 2005. I am also aware of the influence of rules changes on basketball style and I've been very critical on many of them in the past (and I still am). I am also aware that there is more to the style changing than just that.

Bledred, do you think you could sketch out a small case showing how rule changes from the mid 90s to today had a direct impact on the style of the league? I'm open-minded about it and am always up for following the evidence, but haven't seen anything convincing making that point.

The only attempts at arguments I've seen when I've looked online are very superficial correlation things--the NBA changed X or Y rule at the same time that offensive efficiency increased, therefore that rule led to those changes. That's not how you make these type of arguments. (Also the things that I've seen do make a difference--e.g. the restricted circle--don't get talked about much.)

EDIT: also one thing to be careful about is that the NBA abolsutely 100% DID want to make the game quicker in the early 2000s. But logically and in terms of historical analysis that absolutely doesn't mean that the reason that change happened was because of a few things the NBA changed. Very common thing in history--a politician will make some economic or social laws to reach an end they want to achieve, but in retrospect everyone agrees that these laws didn't play much of a role in the larger and more comprehensive historic change that happened.

Way back in the day, I did tons of research on perimeter scorers and how their scoring was impacted. Even players who had been around for a long time had huge jumps in scoring as soon as one of the rules was implemented (it's been so long that I forgot which and details). If I can access that notepad file, then I'll post the evidence.

But yes, this is real and players who've gone through the transition have stated that it helped them significantly, Nash calling it transformative for his career, for example.
In no alternate universe does Jerry Stackhouse average 30 in the 90s.

If you really are interested, and I have the time, I can do that again. But it was time consuming.
Otherwise, you can look up videos online.

Watch on YouTube

All of the Euros say the same thing as Luka. It's not a coincidence.
In another interview with JJ Reddick, he says that the 3 second violation "makes it so easy. People don't realize" and goes on to explain how he waits for the lane to clear and then drives.

In this interview, he says just because of that rule, you can get 10 more points, easy.

If you actually want to learn about the time line of rule changes, follow this guy's thread (I'm not doing the work)
viewtopic.php?t=2325625

Is Nash wrong? Is Hubie Brown wrong?
People here claim there's hand checking now but fail to realize that hand checking is about providing resistance by pushing back, which there is none of today.

Watch on YouTube

Even AI knows it. If you type "how rule changes impacted the nba" you get "NBA rule changes, particularly the expansion of the three-point line and stricter defensive rules, have significantly impacted the game by making it more offensive-oriented, emphasizing perimeter shooting, and leading to a faster pace with less physical contact, resulting in a more exciting and high-scoring style of play for fans; recent changes like the in-game flopping penalty aim to further refine the game by discouraging unsportsmanlike behavior."

"Rule changes in the NBA, particularly those aimed at reducing physical defense and promoting offensive fluidity by limiting hand-checking and illegal screens, have significantly contributed to higher scoring averages by giving offensive players more freedom of movement and creating more scoring opportunities; this is further amplified by the increased emphasis on three-point shooting and faster pace of play, leading to more possessions per game."