Where does the myth of physical 90s NBA basketball come from?

[Sedale Threatt]

Oh hey, here are highlights of LeBron putting 43 on the vaunted Pistons in Nov. 2004, the height of the dead ball era, in his 90th NBA game at 19 years old, at which point Jordan was still a freshman at North Carolina.

Watch on YouTube

The lane is almost wide open. See my below post, from GOAT thread.

Defensive resistance isn't even close

I literally just chose two random 40 point games from Lebron and Jordan, decided on picking Golden State for Lebron and a weaker EC playoff teams for Jordan to be even more fair. These are the first two I found.

You tell me who had the easier buckets and who faced tougher defense. Lebron's open almost all the damned time.
1:44, Lebron waits for the 3 sec, by the time the big can get to him he has to fly sideways just to contest. So ridiculous.
Look at 2:15-2:30 to get an idea for MJ... or the whole video even.

Crazy how different the game is. Free layups and free open 3s. Bro, imagine Jordan with all of that space, would be stupid. 1:44, the whole video really.

Then imagine Lebron having come into the league at 1984, the 3 point line's inception being 1980, he doesn't use 3's, trying to face this

No chance Lebron would be anywhere near as effective, wouldn't even have players to pass to on the perimeter either. His efficiency would go down the toilet. Jordan was a per-century outlier whereas Lebron is a generational outlier. That's the difference.

After this 61 point embarrassment, Chuck Daly created the Jordan rules so that he "wouldn't embarrass them"
Imagine Lebron trying to get to the rim in each of these scenarios.

By the way, Jordan did this without putting up one three.

You actually had to have your back to the basket back often because you couldn't just face up and easily score like you can today.

It's also funny how modern fans talk about the increase of talent, not realizing there's a give and take. Back then, you almost certainly had to be good at defense to be drafted and a poor defender was good by today's standards. Now, so many players suck and are drafted. But no one mentions this. Hmmmm.

Yup, because if that's one thing I remember about those Detroit Pistons, it's leaving the lane wide open. And being super-soft. And not playing much defense at all. Limiting the Lakers to 82 points per game on 42% shooting in the Finals just a few months before this, or going on to limit the Spurs to 85 points per game on 43% shooting in the ensuing Finals months after -- was it all a dream?

This is how ridiculous some of you are, especially when you have an axe to grind -- those Pistons are widely regarded as one of the very best defensive teams of all time, with the added benefit of playing at a point where pace had ground to a halt. But yeah, the lane is wide open and defensive resistance isn't even close. Right.

[Ainosterhaspie]

It's impossible to defend now and there's really no legit defense allowed.

If this is true, why were the 23 and 24 finals lower scoring than the 93 and 95 finals?

[seren]

There was nothing special about 90s basketball when it comes to physicality. There were a lot of players who were so untalented that the only thing they could do on the floor was hacking other players. But even those were a few. The general issue was lack of talent. There were only a few players who could shoot like they do today, who could dribble like they do today and who have the stamina to run and cover players like they do today. The games looked rough not because some high level of physicality but because the league simply didn’t have enough talent

[seren]

I can’t finish a layup but look at me grabbing one thousand offensive rebounds because nobody including me on the team can shoot is not a flex people think it is.

[tdot_steel]

The answer is simple and obvious: Michael Jordan.

No athlete had ever achieved the fame that Jordan did. On top of that, you had the PERFECT amount of exposition - games were on TV, and there was some media coverage. Sportscenter was an actual thing back then and really came into its own as well. The shoes, the dream team, playing baseball and then coming back - we have never seen anything like that and likely never will again. But there was no social media, and while the internet was becoming a thing, it wasn't close to what it is today.

Jordan's peak level of fame coincided with the 90s and what came with it (the above) - other NBA players? They just benefitted from Jordan being around, and because we all associate Jordan with the 90s and he is unquestionably one of the greatest athletes to walk this planet, there is just a positive association a lot of us have.

The truth is....you can see how Reggie Miller was a good player, but what would he be in todays game? Honestly? Really be honest with yourself about that. I would have to go back and watch highlights of him, but I don't remember him being a great finisher at the rim. I remember him being incredible at coming off screens and being able to knock down jump shots, I remember him putting in serious effort on defense and being a competitor - so are we talking about a very slightly better version of Klay Thompson there? If we are being painfully honest, that could be the case.

Nothing against Reggie - he was ahead of his time back then. But...to me that is an example of how glorify the 90s.

This is how clueless this generation is. Reggie has scored almost 8,000 more points in an era where players were not shooting as many 3's. There was no handcheck rule in that era and teams were a lot more physical in the Eastern Conference.
The Knicks, Pistons, Pacers, Celtics and 76'ers were all physical teams with bruisers.
Klay Thompson will have to add 3 more All Star season to achieve Reggie's accomplishments. That is not going to happen.

[SeattleJazzFan]

Because the 90s didn’t have the Trae Young, Brunson type flopping that we see in today game.

you think players weren't flopping in the 90s? lol

No, not even close to the same level that it's happening now. Vlade was the only one that was really doing it back then.

lol. this the answer to the op's question. people have either very bad or very selective memories. nostalgia does amazing things to people.

[Ainosterhaspie]

The answer is simple and obvious: Michael Jordan.

No athlete had ever achieved the fame that Jordan did. On top of that, you had the PERFECT amount of exposition - games were on TV, and there was some media coverage. Sportscenter was an actual thing back then and really came into its own as well. The shoes, the dream team, playing baseball and then coming back - we have never seen anything like that and likely never will again. But there was no social media, and while the internet was becoming a thing, it wasn't close to what it is today.

Jordan's peak level of fame coincided with the 90s and what came with it (the above) - other NBA players? They just benefitted from Jordan being around, and because we all associate Jordan with the 90s and he is unquestionably one of the greatest athletes to walk this planet, there is just a positive association a lot of us have.

The truth is....you can see how Reggie Miller was a good player, but what would he be in todays game? Honestly? Really be honest with yourself about that. I would have to go back and watch highlights of him, but I don't remember him being a great finisher at the rim. I remember him being incredible at coming off screens and being able to knock down jump shots, I remember him putting in serious effort on defense and being a competitor - so are we talking about a very slightly better version of Klay Thompson there? If we are being painfully honest, that could be the case.

Nothing against Reggie - he was ahead of his time back then. But...to me that is an example of how glorify the 90s.

This is how clueless this generation is. Reggie has scored almost 8,000 more points in an era where players were not shooting as many 3's. There was no handcheck rule in that era and teams were a lot more physical in the Eastern Conference.
The Knicks, Pistons, Pacers, Celtics and 76'ers were all physical teams with bruisers.
Klay Thompson will have to add 3 more All Star season to achieve Reggie's accomplishments. That is not going to happen.

Flat out false.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[SeattleJazzFan]

No, not even close to the same level that it's happening now. Vlade was the only one that was really doing it back then.

there you go, you just answered the question lol

players were, people just don't remember them as distinctly. You can go back and find many such cases that just aren't fresh in everyone's minds

Vlade was a nobody. None of the stars players were regularly flopping and exaggerating contact. You think that guys in the 90s had mastered flopping to the same degree as they have now?

of course they had. i was flopping (masterfully, i might add) as a teenager in the mid-80s playing HS ball - but you think pros didn't know how - in the 90s no less? good heavens. this stuff is funny.

[Ritzo]

It all started in 2016. The debate between the 73-9 GSW vs 72-10 Bulls. Then LeBron and the Cavs beat them in the Finals and started the GOAT debate between MJ vs LeBron. The MJ fanatics and old heads starting to downplay the current era by saying it wasn't as physical as the 90's. Then they started uploading a compilations of hard fouls from the Bad Boy Pistons, bringing up the overrated handchecking narrative, while also making compilations of flopping from the current era. They're just afraid of someone that threatens MJ's legacy.

[bledredwine]

Oh hey, here are highlights of LeBron putting 43 on the vaunted Pistons in Nov. 2004, the height of the dead ball era, in his 90th NBA game at 19 years old, at which point Jordan was still a freshman at North Carolina.

Watch on YouTube

The lane is almost wide open. See my below post, from GOAT thread.

Defensive resistance isn't even close

I literally just chose two random 40 point games from Lebron and Jordan, decided on picking Golden State for Lebron and a weaker EC playoff teams for Jordan to be even more fair. These are the first two I found.

You tell me who had the easier buckets and who faced tougher defense. Lebron's open almost all the damned time.
1:44, Lebron waits for the 3 sec, by the time the big can get to him he has to fly sideways just to contest. So ridiculous.
Look at 2:15-2:30 to get an idea for MJ... or the whole video even.

Crazy how different the game is. Free layups and free open 3s. Bro, imagine Jordan with all of that space, would be stupid. 1:44, the whole video really.

Then imagine Lebron having come into the league at 1984, the 3 point line's inception being 1980, he doesn't use 3's, trying to face this

No chance Lebron would be anywhere near as effective, wouldn't even have players to pass to on the perimeter either. His efficiency would go down the toilet. Jordan was a per-century outlier whereas Lebron is a generational outlier. That's the difference.

After this 61 point embarrassment, Chuck Daly created the Jordan rules so that he "wouldn't embarrass them"
Imagine Lebron trying to get to the rim in each of these scenarios.

By the way, Jordan did this without putting up one three.

You actually had to have your back to the basket back often because you couldn't just face up and easily score like you can today.

It's also funny how modern fans talk about the increase of talent, not realizing there's a give and take. Back then, you almost certainly had to be good at defense to be drafted and a poor defender was good by today's standards. Now, so many players suck and are drafted. But no one mentions this. Hmmmm.

Yup, because if that's one thing I remember about those Detroit Pistons, it's leaving the lane wide open. And being super-soft. And not playing much defense at all. Limiting the Lakers to 82 points per game on 42% shooting in the Finals just a few months before this, or going on to limit the Spurs to 85 points per game on 43% shooting in the ensuing Finals months after -- was it all a dream?

This is how ridiculous some of you are, especially when you have an axe to grind -- those Pistons are widely regarded as one of the very best defensive teams of all time, with the added benefit of playing at a point where pace had ground to a halt. But yeah, the lane is wide open and defensive resistance isn't even close. Right.

That Pistons team was excellent considering and it had nothing to do with them and everything to do with the rules. Come on. It is what it is. You can’t even compare that to the 80s Pistons.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

"Physical" is too broad a term here. The 90s were more physical in one way and less physical in another way.

It was more physical in terms of fouls/contact and the degree to which players were touching each other one-on-one simply because the spacing was different; the paint was more packed, fewer three point shooters, bigs playing together more often, more back-to-basket post game, all of that. A higher percentage of shots were being taken closer to the basket where more bodies were and that meant there was more of that very easily visible "banging" kind of physicality.

(Also, it's not the game itself, but there seemed to be more brawls and fights back then - all of the stuff the Bad Boys did, the stuff that was done in retaliation to the Bad Boys[like Parish punching Laimbeer], the Knicks/Bulls brawl in 94 right in front of David Stern, Pippen dunking on Ewing and almost stomping him in 94, the PJ Brown brawl in 97, that one in 2001 when Marcus Camby accidentally hit JVG, just to name a few. Those sorts of things don't really happen much anymore post-Malice, and but seeing the clips of all that stuff can certainly paint the picture of a rougher era).

On the other hand, the modern game is more physical in terms of stamina and the need to run a lot more in the half-court because there's so much more defensive ground to cover with modern spacing. With all of that running in the halfcourt also probably comes more frequent and sudden changes of direction, which might be a factor in why it seems like there's been an uptick in the frequency of non-contact lower leg injuries(i.e. ACL/achilles/etc) over the last 20 years or so(though I haven't really done the research on that).

In conclusion, physicality isn't just one thing.

[MacGill]

It's almost like saying.....where does the myth of 20's All-Star games not being competitive come from.........

[og15]

yawn. All you have to do is go look at the scores in the Finals for your answer but OP is clearly disingenuous and not interested in anything that goes against his bias.

Also you:

now the league is an unwatchable joke with zero defense and an explosion of offensive numbers based off that more than any increase in skill.

But, no bias there, right?

Let's look at some finals from the 90s compared to the 20s.

Winner 106.7 PPG. Loser 106.7 PPG.
Winner 114 PPG. Loser 107 PPG.

Winner 104.6 PPG. Loser 96.4 PPG.
Winner 101.6 PPG. Loser 99.2 PPG.

The first two look like a weaker defense era and the latter two look like the stronger defense era. First two are the 93 and 95 finals. Second two are the 23 and 24 finals.

We see 90s mythologists says things like "90s defenses were brutal and every time you drove the lane, you'd get knocked on your ass", and "today you can't touch anyone or play defense", yet series like the above happened which completely destroys that narrative.

That narrative is wrong because it's taking a kernel of truth and making it the whole truth when there are numerous factors intertwined which make the story much more complex than the "90s defense good and physical, modern defenses trash and soft" narrative.

Yes, the three second rule makes offense easier than it would be without it, but so did the illegal defense rule which was more impactful.

Yes handchecking enforcement relaxed at various moments in the 90s. (It's always been illegal, but enforcement waxes and wanes over the years). But it wasn't a tool extensively employed by every team all game through the whole 90s. When it started to get out of hand, the league cracked down right in the middle of the 90s.

Yes the paint was crowded in the 90s. More than anything else, this was because the offensive philosophy at the time was that good offense meant post ups and shots as close to the basket as you can get. Players were discouraged from taking threes. It was viewed as smart basketball to pass up an open three, step inside the arc for a long two. That's a fundamentally broken idea, but it was ubiquitous at the time.

That mindset destroyed offensive efficiency and it had nothing to do with physical or quality defense. Offenses intentionally rejected higher efficiency shots in favor of lower efficiency shots. That didn't just impact those shots, it impacted the whole offense. Defenders could crowd the lane because they didn't have to defend at the arc. This made things much more crowded and therefore physical inside, but it had nothing to do with the rules. It was primarily bad tactics.

Had teams understood the value of threes and taught their players to take shots from beyond the arc, it would have forced defenses to defend more space and it would have opened up things inside.

No, handchecking isn't why teams didn't do this. If you watch the games, you can see wide open shot after wide open shot being rejected in favor of attempts to force entry passes for low efficiency post ups.

But that's just because defenses knew those guys couldn't shoot so they didn't guard them as a smart tactic. To the extent that is true, there was nothing preventing players from practicing the three more and no reason coaches couldn't have taught even weak shooters that a three is better than a long two. But weak shooter aside, even the great three point shooters often didn't take open threes in favor of making interior passes or stepping inside the arc for long two.

The three was there as a tool that would have opened offenses and increased efficiency and teams simply refused to use it. This was fundamentally bad basketball and is far more than physical defense and the rules of the era, the reason that offensive output was suppressed in that era. The modern utilization of the three is far more responsible for modern offensive output, than rules changes since the 90s.

A lot of what you are saying is true and is the nuance that some people seem to now want to understand or acknowledge.

Where I will disagree and push back is against the statement of, "this was fundamentally bad basketball". I don't believe that is true at all. It was not optimizing their efficiency, yes, but I don't think it's accurate to say it was fundamentally bad to do some of those specific things at all.

In fact, if more players were more comfortable at that long two, then it was better basketball if their long range shooting skill level was not there.

....but in general, it's not "bad", it's different, and yes, against players with the shooting skill, it's less efficient overall, but that's different from bad.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Let's look at some finals from the 90s compared to the 20s.

Winner 106.7 PPG. Loser 106.7 PPG.
Winner 114 PPG. Loser 107 PPG.

Winner 104.6 PPG. Loser 96.4 PPG.
Winner 101.6 PPG. Loser 99.2 PPG.

The first two look like a weaker defense era and the latter two look like the stronger defense era. First two are the 93 and 95 finals. Second two are the 23 and 24 finals.

The operative phrase here is "some finals". I don't know if it's on purpose, but you've cited the two highest-scoring Finals of the 90s and two of the lowest-scoring Finals of the last ten years. If we look at larger samples of the Finals in the 90s vs the last ten years, we can see a clear difference.

1990-1999

1990: 107.0->102.0
1991: 101.4->91.6
1992: 104.0->96.7
1993: 106.7->106.7
1994: 86.9 -> 86.1
1995: 114.0->107.0
1996: 93.0->89.2
1997: 87.8->87.2
1998: 88.0->80.2
1999: 84.8->79.8

That's 20 averages over 10 years. Here's how it breaks down in 5ppg increments:

75-79: 1/20
80-84: 1/20
84-89: 7/20
90-94: 2/20
94-99: 1/20
100-104: 3/20
105-109: 5/20
110+: 0

2015-2024

2015: 100.7->93.5
2016: 100.4->99.9
2017: 121.6->114.8
2018: 116.0->101.0
2019: 111.5->105.8
2020: 110.0->104.5
2021: 111.7->109.3
2022: 104.8->100.8
2023: 104.6->96.4
2024: 101.6->99.2

And the breakdown:

70-79: 0/20
80-84: 0/20
84-89: 0/20
90-94: 1/20
95-99: 3/20
100-104: 8/20
105-109: 2/20
110-114: 6/20

These larger samples clearly show that, at least in the Finals, the scoring is higher now than it was then. We can debate about why this is - I'm not saying it's because of physicality, it could be other things(rules, pace[i.e. possessions per game], more 3s, etc) - and about whether it's a good thing or not, but in terms of whether or not the 90s were lower scoring, it seems fairly obvious, especially the late 90s.

[Sedale Threatt]

The lane is almost wide open. See my below post, from GOAT thread.

Defensive resistance isn't even close

I literally just chose two random 40 point games from Lebron and Jordan, decided on picking Golden State for Lebron and a weaker EC playoff teams for Jordan to be even more fair. These are the first two I found.

You tell me who had the easier buckets and who faced tougher defense. Lebron's open almost all the damned time.
1:44, Lebron waits for the 3 sec, by the time the big can get to him he has to fly sideways just to contest. So ridiculous.
Look at 2:15-2:30 to get an idea for MJ... or the whole video even.

Crazy how different the game is. Free layups and free open 3s. Bro, imagine Jordan with all of that space, would be stupid. 1:44, the whole video really.

Then imagine Lebron having come into the league at 1984, the 3 point line's inception being 1980, he doesn't use 3's, trying to face this

No chance Lebron would be anywhere near as effective, wouldn't even have players to pass to on the perimeter either. His efficiency would go down the toilet. Jordan was a per-century outlier whereas Lebron is a generational outlier. That's the difference.

After this 61 point embarrassment, Chuck Daly created the Jordan rules so that he "wouldn't embarrass them"
Imagine Lebron trying to get to the rim in each of these scenarios.

By the way, Jordan did this without putting up one three.

You actually had to have your back to the basket back often because you couldn't just face up and easily score like you can today.

It's also funny how modern fans talk about the increase of talent, not realizing there's a give and take. Back then, you almost certainly had to be good at defense to be drafted and a poor defender was good by today's standards. Now, so many players suck and are drafted. But no one mentions this. Hmmmm.

Yup, because if that's one thing I remember about those Detroit Pistons, it's leaving the lane wide open. And being super-soft. And not playing much defense at all. Limiting the Lakers to 82 points per game on 42% shooting in the Finals just a few months before this, or going on to limit the Spurs to 85 points per game on 43% shooting in the ensuing Finals months after -- was it all a dream?

This is how ridiculous some of you are, especially when you have an axe to grind -- those Pistons are widely regarded as one of the very best defensive teams of all time, with the added benefit of playing at a point where pace had ground to a halt. But yeah, the lane is wide open and defensive resistance isn't even close. Right.

That Pistons team was excellent considering and it had nothing to do with them and everything to do with the rules. Come on. It is what it is. You can’t even compare that to the 80s Pistons.

In terms of actual defensive ability? F'ing A I can. That team was so overblown it's ridiculous. The extent of the Jordan Rules: Force him left, foul him hard if he got off the ground. And that's pretty much it.

Adjusted for pace, the 04 Pistons gave up a full 9.3 and 8.1 fewer points per 100 than the previous two championship teams did, in a league that shot roughly 4 percentage points worse as a collective.

But, yes. The only reason a team featuring the likes of Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince was any good on defense was because of the rules. Sure.

[JXL]

I rather watch the physical, low-90s scoreboard, grind it out game than the high 120s, jack up 3s that the NBA is today.

There was something about the purity of basketball that is lost in today's game. The fight of "Who wants this W more?" feeling. The rivalries the define generations of fans.

That's what makes the 90s brand so respected.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Also you:



But, no bias there, right?

Let's look at some finals from the 90s compared to the 20s.

Winner 106.7 PPG. Loser 106.7 PPG.
Winner 114 PPG. Loser 107 PPG.

Winner 104.6 PPG. Loser 96.4 PPG.
Winner 101.6 PPG. Loser 99.2 PPG.

The first two look like a weaker defense era and the latter two look like the stronger defense era. First two are the 93 and 95 finals. Second two are the 23 and 24 finals.

We see 90s mythologists says things like "90s defenses were brutal and every time you drove the lane, you'd get knocked on your ass", and "today you can't touch anyone or play defense", yet series like the above happened which completely destroys that narrative.

That narrative is wrong because it's taking a kernel of truth and making it the whole truth when there are numerous factors intertwined which make the story much more complex than the "90s defense good and physical, modern defenses trash and soft" narrative.

Yes, the three second rule makes offense easier than it would be without it, but so did the illegal defense rule which was more impactful.

Yes handchecking enforcement relaxed at various moments in the 90s. (It's always been illegal, but enforcement waxes and wanes over the years). But it wasn't a tool extensively employed by every team all game through the whole 90s. When it started to get out of hand, the league cracked down right in the middle of the 90s.

Yes the paint was crowded in the 90s. More than anything else, this was because the offensive philosophy at the time was that good offense meant post ups and shots as close to the basket as you can get. Players were discouraged from taking threes. It was viewed as smart basketball to pass up an open three, step inside the arc for a long two. That's a fundamentally broken idea, but it was ubiquitous at the time.

That mindset destroyed offensive efficiency and it had nothing to do with physical or quality defense. Offenses intentionally rejected higher efficiency shots in favor of lower efficiency shots. That didn't just impact those shots, it impacted the whole offense. Defenders could crowd the lane because they didn't have to defend at the arc. This made things much more crowded and therefore physical inside, but it had nothing to do with the rules. It was primarily bad tactics.

Had teams understood the value of threes and taught their players to take shots from beyond the arc, it would have forced defenses to defend more space and it would have opened up things inside.

No, handchecking isn't why teams didn't do this. If you watch the games, you can see wide open shot after wide open shot being rejected in favor of attempts to force entry passes for low efficiency post ups.

But that's just because defenses knew those guys couldn't shoot so they didn't guard them as a smart tactic. To the extent that is true, there was nothing preventing players from practicing the three more and no reason coaches couldn't have taught even weak shooters that a three is better than a long two. But weak shooter aside, even the great three point shooters often didn't take open threes in favor of making interior passes or stepping inside the arc for long two.

The three was there as a tool that would have opened offenses and increased efficiency and teams simply refused to use it. This was fundamentally bad basketball and is far more than physical defense and the rules of the era, the reason that offensive output was suppressed in that era. The modern utilization of the three is far more responsible for modern offensive output, than rules changes since the 90s.

A lot of what you are saying is true and is the nuance that some people seem to now want to understand or acknowledge.

Where I will disagree and push back is against the statement of, "this was fundamentally bad basketball". I don't believe that is true at all. It was not optimizing their efficiency, yes, but I don't think it's accurate to say it was fundamentally bad to do some of those specific things at all.

In fact, if more players were more comfortable at that long two, then it was better basketball if their long range shooting skill level was not there.

....but in general, it's not "bad", it's different, and yes, against players with the shooting skill, it's less efficient overall, but that's different from bad.

Does that one step change shooting percentage from

25% to 38%
30% to 45%
35% to 53%

That's what's needed to make that step match or exceed production from taking the shot behind the line. That's just to make the shot itself better. There is also the added benefit that taking that outside shot forces defenders to guard more space which opens up the game for teammates.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Also you:



But, no bias there, right?

Let's look at some finals from the 90s compared to the 20s.

Winner 106.7 PPG. Loser 106.7 PPG.
Winner 114 PPG. Loser 107 PPG.

Winner 104.6 PPG. Loser 96.4 PPG.
Winner 101.6 PPG. Loser 99.2 PPG.

The first two look like a weaker defense era and the latter two look like the stronger defense era. First two are the 93 and 95 finals. Second two are the 23 and 24 finals.

We see 90s mythologists says things like "90s defenses were brutal and every time you drove the lane, you'd get knocked on your ass", and "today you can't touch anyone or play defense", yet series like the above happened which completely destroys that narrative.

That narrative is wrong because it's taking a kernel of truth and making it the whole truth when there are numerous factors intertwined which make the story much more complex than the "90s defense good and physical, modern defenses trash and soft" narrative.

Yes, the three second rule makes offense easier than it would be without it, but so did the illegal defense rule which was more impactful.

Yes handchecking enforcement relaxed at various moments in the 90s. (It's always been illegal, but enforcement waxes and wanes over the years). But it wasn't a tool extensively employed by every team all game through the whole 90s. When it started to get out of hand, the league cracked down right in the middle of the 90s.

Yes the paint was crowded in the 90s. More than anything else, this was because the offensive philosophy at the time was that good offense meant post ups and shots as close to the basket as you can get. Players were discouraged from taking threes. It was viewed as smart basketball to pass up an open three, step inside the arc for a long two. That's a fundamentally broken idea, but it was ubiquitous at the time.

That mindset destroyed offensive efficiency and it had nothing to do with physical or quality defense. Offenses intentionally rejected higher efficiency shots in favor of lower efficiency shots. That didn't just impact those shots, it impacted the whole offense. Defenders could crowd the lane because they didn't have to defend at the arc. This made things much more crowded and therefore physical inside, but it had nothing to do with the rules. It was primarily bad tactics.

Had teams understood the value of threes and taught their players to take shots from beyond the arc, it would have forced defenses to defend more space and it would have opened up things inside.

No, handchecking isn't why teams didn't do this. If you watch the games, you can see wide open shot after wide open shot being rejected in favor of attempts to force entry passes for low efficiency post ups.

But that's just because defenses knew those guys couldn't shoot so they didn't guard them as a smart tactic. To the extent that is true, there was nothing preventing players from practicing the three more and no reason coaches couldn't have taught even weak shooters that a three is better than a long two. But weak shooter aside, even the great three point shooters often didn't take open threes in favor of making interior passes or stepping inside the arc for long two.

The three was there as a tool that would have opened offenses and increased efficiency and teams simply refused to use it. This was fundamentally bad basketball and is far more than physical defense and the rules of the era, the reason that offensive output was suppressed in that era. The modern utilization of the three is far more responsible for modern offensive output, than rules changes since the 90s.

A lot of what you are saying is true and is the nuance that some people seem to now want to understand or acknowledge.

Where I will disagree and push back is against the statement of, "this was fundamentally bad basketball". I don't believe that is true at all. It was not optimizing their efficiency, yes, but I don't think it's accurate to say it was fundamentally bad to do some of those specific things at all.

In fact, if more players were more comfortable at that long two, then it was better basketball if their long range shooting skill level was not there.

....but in general, it's not "bad", it's different, and yes, against players with the shooting skill, it's less efficient overall, but that's different from bad.

And I agree with all of that. There is a view amongst modern-leaning fans that the game has been figured out and is now being played "correctly" and that everyone was doing it wrong for the first 60+ years of the NBA, and I really, really dislike that way of thinking. It leads to a POV where the past isn't respected or given its due.

I'm all for a thoughtful discourse about why one era is different than another, or why one person might find a one era more entertaining than another, but a number of these people seem to have actual contempt for previous eras. The use of phrases like "plumbers and firemen" and "caveman defenses", or the descriptions of offensive systems from that past as "primitive" really rub me the wrong way. You can prefer one era over another without disrespecting the other, and too often I see people disrespecting other eras.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s(and yes, I was and am a Bulls fan) and I probably prefer that era to any other, but that doesn't mean I'm some kind of hater of the modern game. This current era of parity, if you want to call it that, since 2018 or so, is maybe my favorite era of basketball SINCE the 90s. I love this Celtics team of the last few years, I'm a big Jokic fan, I like what the Thunder are doing, I love this iteration of the Knicks(finally relevant after a long cold winter), I loved the addition of DeAndre Hunter to the Cavs, I'm a Luka fan(but hate the trade), I also loved the 2019 Raptors' run, etc.

So I tend to push back hard against the overly negative anti-90s sentiment, but it doesn't come from a place of disliking the current game.

[Bush4Ever]

A combination of crap offenses/bad spacing/more congestion with the basic old-head tendency to project how tough and badass THEY are because THEIR era was [something positive, often relating to toughness].

They see the 1990s as a reflection of themselves, and since they know they can't plausibly make any claim about tangible basketball skills vs. the modern game, they move to less tangible and squishier concepts like toughness or "caring about the game" in order to feel good about themselves.

[QPR]

It's funny how physicality is seen as banging bodies, hard fouls etc, but not the insane levels of fitness and agility you need to play modern offense and defense.

To me Steph spending 35 minutes on the move, dodging screens etc is more physical than Elden Campbell enacting four consecutive post-ups.