Which 90's Star would drop the most in the present era?

[ty 4191]

So...why is Rodman leading this poll by a wide margin again, then?

[penbeast0]

So...why is Rodman leading this poll by a wide margin again, then?

Because today's fans don't value players who don't shoot 3's, who focus on offensive rebounding, and who are bat poop crazy?

[ty 4191]

Because today's fans don't value players who don't shoot 3's, who focus on offensive rebounding, and who are bat poop crazy?

No, I'm asking, seriously! To those who voted for him, especially.

[penbeast0]

Because today's fans don't value players who don't shoot 3's, who focus on offensive rebounding, and who are bat poop crazy?

No, I'm asking, seriously! To those who voted for him, especially.

I would guess that those are the 3 main reasons. If he had a 3 point shot, if offensive rebounding was valued as highly as in the 90s, or if he was a stand up citizen, I would guess he would be rated higher today. Seriously, can you imagine Rodman with the Covid protocols? He'd NEVER play.

[ty 4191]

Because today's fans don't value players who don't shoot 3's, who focus on offensive rebounding, and who are bat poop crazy?

No, I'm asking, seriously! To those who voted for him, especially.

I would guess that those are the 3 main reasons. If he had a 3 point shot, if offensive rebounding was valued as highly as in the 90s, or if he was a stand up citizen, I would guess he would be rated higher today. Seriously, can you imagine Rodman with the Covid protocols? He'd NEVER play.

Oh! I thought you meant the fans here are bat poop crazy! I read that wrong. Mea culpa.

Why do you think offensive rebounding isn't as highly valued now, versus the 90's?

Rodman was quite clearly one of the most valuable players of the late 80's to mid/late 90's. Despite ostensibly lousy boxscore stats...

Why would he be significantly less valuable today, if defense and rebounding aren't significantly less important today?

[ty 4191]

Seriously, can you imagine Rodman with the Covid protocols? He'd NEVER play.

Great point. My God. That would be a NIGHTMARE.

[penbeast0]

...
Why do you think offensive rebounding isn't as highly valued now, versus the 90's?

Rodman was quite clearly one of the most valuable players of the late 80's to mid/late 90's. Despite ostensibly lousy boxscore stats...

Why would he be significantly less valuable today, if defense and rebounding aren't significantly less important today?

One of Coach Pop's publicly stated innovations is the devalution of offensive rebounding in order to get your players back on defense. Additionally, the greatly increased 3 point shot mean more long rebounds which means that offensive (and defensive) rebounding would logically be less concentrated in the top big man rebounder who play closer to the basket. Finally, the league has changed the rules to try to cut back on physical defense and league offenses have moved away from post scoring to 3 point shooting. Rodman wasn't my first choice but he was a guy I considered for all these reasons.

[70sFan]

...
Why do you think offensive rebounding isn't as highly valued now, versus the 90's?

Rodman was quite clearly one of the most valuable players of the late 80's to mid/late 90's. Despite ostensibly lousy boxscore stats...

Why would he be significantly less valuable today, if defense and rebounding aren't significantly less important today?

One of Coach Pop's publicly stated innovations is the devalution of offensive rebounding in order to get your players back on defense. Additionally, the greatly increased 3 point shot mean more long rebounds which means that offensive (and defensive) rebounding would logically be less concentrated in the top big man rebounder who play closer to the basket. Finally, the league has changed the rules to try to cut back on physical defense and league offenses have moved away from post scoring to 3 point shooting. Rodman wasn't my first choice but he was a guy I considered for all these reasons.

About offensive rebounding - I think it's definitely true for teams, but not necessarily for individuals. We have seen offensive rebounders having a major impact in modern league. It's just that you can't build your whole offense around offensive rebounding (like Chicago did in the second three peat).

[penbeast0]

It isn't a zero value, but it's less highly valued than it was in the 90s I would say.

[falcolombardi]

...
Why do you think offensive rebounding isn't as highly valued now, versus the 90's?

Rodman was quite clearly one of the most valuable players of the late 80's to mid/late 90's. Despite ostensibly lousy boxscore stats...

Why would he be significantly less valuable today, if defense and rebounding aren't significantly less important today?

One of Coach Pop's publicly stated innovations is the devalution of offensive rebounding in order to get your players back on defense. Additionally, the greatly increased 3 point shot mean more long rebounds which means that offensive (and defensive) rebounding would logically be less concentrated in the top big man rebounder who play closer to the basket. Finally, the league has changed the rules to try to cut back on physical defense and league offenses have moved away from post scoring to 3 point shooting. Rodman wasn't my first choice but he was a guy I considered for all these reasons.

About offensive rebounding - I think it's definitely true for teams, but not necessarily for individuals. We have seen offensive rebounders having a major impact in modern league. It's just that you can't build your whole offense around offensive rebounding (like Chicago did in the second three peat).

the best offensive rebounder i can think of in the modern era la probably Steven Adams 2 year peak at 5 offensive rebounds per game in 18-19 which is a ton for this era

how big really was his offensive impact those years? his best rapm stretch i could find was +1.96 (2017-2021)

assuming he was a positive defender (which i think he was althpugh not a great one) then there doesnt seem to be much evidence he had big offensive impact from offensive rebounding and finishing alone

[falcolombardi]

where does the "no defense" narrative even come from?

Apologies to those who have already seen this, but it is PARAMOUNT, IMHO, when comparing players from the pre 2000 -2005 sweeping rule changes compared to post 99-00:

98-99 season

The last season before removal of hand checking in its entirety.

99-00 season (first major steps toward hand checking removal)

Hand checking had been slowed down to a small degree in the late 90s, but not anywhere close to the massive change that was introduced starting in 99/00.

"In the backcourt, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders. In the front court, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders except below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may only use his forearm."

So by this point, hand checking is for all intents and purposed removed - "There is no contact with hands" and "the defender may only use his forearm." below the FT line extended.

00-01 season - new rules that further decreased amount of contact allowed by a defender

"No contact with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the front court below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only."

"Neither the offensive player nor the defender will be allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legally obtained a position"
Notice how this rule restricts offensive players' options as well. Even then, we will still see that offensively, the players of the 90s still did better under the new rules even with this restriction.

Others are going to attempt to use this offensive restriction as "proof" that if physical beasts like Lebron were allowed to play physical on offense in the 80s/90s, that they would dominate. That will be disproved later on.

"Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to Point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player."

"Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited."

"On the weakside, defenders must remain on the weakside outside the paint unless (i) they are double-teaming the ball, (ii) picking up a free cutter or (iii) closely guarding an offensive player."

01-02 season - Addition of illegal defensive 3 seconds rules to weaken defenses even more.

A new defensive three-second rule will prohibit a defensive player from remaining in the lane for more than three consecutive seconds without closely guarding an offensive player.

Some people mistakenly assume that this is the first season that zone was introduced, but that is another myth that we will eventually disprove.

This rule makes it much easier to drive in the lane, because bigs can no longer camp out in the lane and deter drives to the basket like they did in the 80s and 90s.

04-05 season

"New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game."
Notice that last part. nba.com itself has admitted that these rules opened up the game.

To show the impact of this rules, let's look at the 2004 Pistons and Spurs.

In the 2003/04 season, the Spurs and Pistons allowed 83.4 ppg on defense. They were the top 2 teams in the league in points allowed

Right after 2004/05 rule changes, they were still the top 2 in points allowed, but the Spurs allowed 88.4 ppg and the Pistons allowed 89.5 ppg.

Now these points allowed might be lower than several teams in Jordan's era, but we see that this difference is more attributed to the decrease in offensive skill in addition to defensive. As proof, several players from the 80s/90s era of defense even after their prime locked down the top superstars of the 2000s WITHOUT the 80s/90s rules.

A TON of additional substantiating evidence as to how drastic these rule changes impacted scoring are provided in great detail, here:

http://nobodytouchesjordan.blogspot.com/2014/09/section-1-players-from-jordans-day.html

I have some criticisms to this argument those guys are doing but i will explain my point first.

What i meant by not understanding where the devaluing of defense comes from is that it doesnt make much difference if the average league defense is weak or strong. or if scoring is high or low.

A 95 def rating in a 100 points average league is nearly as valuable as a 90 def rating in a 95 points average league.

Both teams are -5 defenses so both are gaining nearly* the same value from their defense -relative- to their leagues.

(* 5 points of 95 is a slightly bigger share than 5 points out of 100)

Is the whole reason we use relative numbers when comparing across eras, otherwise we would have to say than any average offense today is better than all time greats of the 70's or 60's.

Look at the modern league: bucks won with defense, lakers won with defense raptors won mainly with defense

Their defensive ratings may be mediocre compared to the 00's best, but they are elite relative to -their actual league-

Now on why i am not too convinced by the argument that blog makes: it seems to want to have its cake and eat it too.

it uses the improvement in offensive numbers after the reffing change to prove defense after 2004 is weaker on what i suppose is an effort to prop up jordan (considering the blog name)

But, at the same time it preemptively handwaves away the obvious question.

"if the higher offensive rating proves how weaker defense got after 2004 ..does that mean the 80's and most of the 90's were even weaker?"
(the offensive ratings from 1980-1996 are actually higher than 2005-2016 ones)

It handwaves it in a very unconvincing way "yes, but that is just because how great offense was!"

If they say that, what would stop me from saying the same about the change post 2004? (is not that defense got nerfes by rules, is that offense just got that much better!).

Or what about going backwards? the 70's and 60's has much stricter rules for offense and even less spacing, shouldnt they diminish the 80's and 90's too compared to premerger basketball if they are being consistent?.

Their last part about older stars locking down newer ones was particularly weird and felt too much like nostalgic glasses of "every retires player from my era was so much better than everythingh today because i say so" variety.

Specially because i am not even sure how would you even start to "prove" that with data.

[ty 4191]

specially because i am not even sure how would you even start to "prove" that with data

Dude, what's with the complete absence of capitalization and punctuation? Is it seriously far too difficult to reach a quarter inch and hit that shift key? Or to even type periods?

To your points:

IF all the defensive rule changes from 1999-2000 through 2004-2005 didn't make defense significantly softer and easier, then why did older players not decline significantly, and why did all the superstars of the Late 90's (all explained in that link) have their best offensive seasons AFTER the changes?

[falcolombardi]

specially because i am not even sure how would you even start to "prove" that with data

Dude, what's with the complete absence of capitalization and punctuation? Is it seriously far too difficult to reach a quarter inch and hit that shift key? Or to even type periods?

To your points:

IF all the defensive rule changes from 1999-2000 through 2004-2005 didn't make defense significantly softer and easier, then why did older players not decline significantly, and why did all the superstars of the Late 90's (all explained in that link) have their best offensive seasons AFTER the changes?

i never said that rules changes didnt make offense easier

in general the tendency of the game development and rules is towards making offense stronger

what it seems to miss is that the league increase in scoring in the mid 00's was only relative to the late 90's/early 00's

the 80's and most of the 90's had more scoring and the same efficiency as the league after 2004

the league in 2005-2015 was not easier to score on than the league in 1980-1996, it was easier to score on than a very short period between 1998-2004

overall is somewhat like this

60's>>70's > early 00's> 00's/10's = or > 80's and 90's. >>late 2010's

as far as hardness to score

the offensive explosión post handchecking rules in 2004 was more a return to "normal" if anythingh

the real offensive explosión compared to any other era started around 2017

[ty 4191]

as far as hardness to score

the offensive explosión post handchecking rules in 2004 was more a return to "normal" if anything

the real offensive explosión compared to any other era started around 2017

I guess it depends on what you mean by "difficulty of scoring". Can you explain?

The league eFG% has increased steadily by decade despite the FG/G decreasing significantly over time...and....despite 3P/G increasing by 10x since the 1980s.

You would think that eFG% would be way down the last 10 years, wouldn't you? With teams shooting 35 threes per team per game versus 3 per team per game in the 80's?

By the way, I'm guessing Spanish is your first language? That's really admirable, debating here, when English isn't your first language. Mad props to you, Brother.

[falcolombardi]

as far as hardness to score

the offensive explosión post handchecking rules in 2004 was more a return to "normal" if anything

the real offensive explosión compared to any other era started around 2017

I guess it depends on what you mean by "difficulty of scoring". Can you explain?

The league eFG% has increased steadily by decade despite the FG/G decreasing significantly over time...and....despite 3P/G increasing by 10x since the 1980s.

You would think that eFG% would be way down the last 10 years, wouldn't you? With teams shooting 35 threes per team per game versus 3 per team per game in the 80's?

By the way, I'm guessing Spanish is your first language? That's really admirable, debating here, when English isn't your first language. Mad props to you, Brother.

well i used hardness to score as a figure of speech to say how much scoring there was in any era

the argument of that blog relies heavily on scoring rates and efficiency increasing post 2004 as a way of saying that defense got easier compared to the past where scoring rates per 100 and efficiency were lower (but they didnt clarify that the past meant only 98-2004)

when i look at the history of the league there is a clear trend of offensive improvement + rules changes that favor offense that makes the league natural state one of improved offense in absolute terms

60's: lowest scoring in the shot clock era

rules and reffing were extremely defense favoring for current standards: strict ballhandling rules, no 3 point line ,strict offensive foul calling in the paint, etc
spacing was minimal and offensive strategy had less options

70's: some looser reffing on dribbling seems to start being allowed, spacing improves somewhat, offense has a few more options and predictably scoring rates and efficiency goes up

80's and 90's: ilegal defense rules, 3 point shot starts slowly to be used, offense goes up

once more the combination of rules changes favoring offenses and offense better tsctics (allowed often by said rules changes) makes life harder for defense

late 90/early 00: the league cancels: the shorter 3 point line AND later relaxes ilegal defense rules

on the táctical side the teams seem to stagnate offensively in iso heavy game

the first time there is a big rules shift favoring defense coincides with defenses improving

2004-2016: league improves tactically overall (pick and roll, 3 point shooting, spacing) while also being helped by rules, predictably offense goes up back to where it was before


2017-2021: league improves tactically (foul hunting, small ball, morey ball) and offense goes up

2022: league does a change in reffing that helps defense and predictably defense improves

basically whenever there is a táctical improvement or rule change (and often the rules change enhances the táctical one, pick and roll wouldnt exist as it does now if not for looser ballhandling rules) offense gets better

the defense adapts to "damage control" but never reaches the old equilibrium

think about it a defense can be so athletic, switchy and tactically smart as it can

but is never gonna be able to eliminate the 3 point line nor convince teams that 2 is better than 3 for jumpshots, or enforce stricter ballhandling

tldr: 80's and 90's (80-97) defense =~ 00' and 10's defense (05-15)

look at the estimated true shooting per season



1957 .449

1958 .449

1959 .457

1960 .463

1961 .469

1962 .479

1963 .493

1964 .485

1965 .479

1966 .487

1967 .493

1968 .498

1969 .491

1970 .511

1971 .500

1972 .504

1973 .498

1974 .503

1975 .502

1976 .504

1977 .511

1978 .515

1979 .530

1980 .531

1981 .534

1982 .539

1983 .531

1984 .543

1985 .543

1986 .541

1987 .538

1988 .538

1989 .537

1990 .537

1991 .534

1992 .531

1993 .536

1994 .528

1995 .543

1996 .542

1997 .536

1998 .524

1999 .511

2000 .523

2001 .518

2002 .520

2003 .519

2004 .516

2005 .529

2006 .536

2007 .541

2008 .540

2009 .544

2010 .543

2011 .541

2012 .527

2013 .535

2014 .541

2015 .534

2016 .541

2017 .552

2018 .556

2019 .560

2020 .563

2021 .572

i put 79-97 and 05-16 the same color cause they have the same true shooting

probably because thinghs like better fast break defense, no ilegal defense and less offensive rebounding counter balance the better spacing and lack of handchecking

some elements of each era help or limit offense, the inbetween point (98-04) is when this "balance" tipped toward defense

it tipped back toward offense with the small ball and morey ball explosión (17) and is awinging back a bit with the new rules change on fouls

[McBubbles]

...

What a coincidence, I was looking at average TS% by year over the past few days and was about to make a post about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the EFG% of the 80's to 1997 to be basically the same as 2005-16 (I think a single percentage of less difference) despite a severe lack of 3's, surely that means that they made 2's at a much higher percentage? And if they made 2's at a higher percentage, that'd mean that defence wasn't as good in that time period as it has been from 05-16?

I say this because I was just looking at some Jordan seasons individually, and noticed that he had ridiculously high 2P%'s on ridiculously high volume. Then I looked at some other players in the 90's and noticed that a lot of them have very high 2 point percentages, or at least higher than you'd expect.

And then I noticed that players who you would not consider scorers at all have comparable two point percentages than some ATG's.

2009, athletic peak Lebron James shot 53.5% on 15.2 attempts per game.

2012-14 KD, averaged 54.1% on 14.3 attempts per game.

1992 Scottie Pippen shot 52.6% on 15.6 2's a game.

6'1 PG Kevin Johnson in 1991 shot 52.9% on 14.2 2's a game.

That seems a bit odd that the latter two would have comparable volume and efficiency to the former two no?

When accounting for volume, Shaq shot his highest TS%, EFG% and 2P% in 1994, his second year in the league and only really came close again in 2000.

Idk, this is all wishy washy and I'm very sleepy lol but long story short the 80-1997 has some ridiculously high 2 point percentages per volume that weren't close to being touched from 05-16 and I highly doubt it's just because those players were monumentally better.

[falcolombardi]

What a coincidence, I was looking at average TS% by year over the past few days and was about to make a post about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the EFG% of the 80's to 1997 to be basically the same as 2005-16 (I think a single percentage of less difference) despite a severe lack of 3's, surely that means that they made 2's at a much higher percentage? And if they made 2's at a higher percentage, that'd mean that defence wasn't as good in that time period as it has been from 05-16?

I say this because I was just looking at some Jordan seasons individually, and noticed that he had ridiculously high 2P%'s on ridiculously high volume. Then I looked at some other players in the 90's and noticed that a lot of them have very high 2 point percentages, or at least higher than you'd expect.

And then I noticed that players who you would not consider scorers at all have comparable two point percentages than some ATG's.

2009, athletic peak Lebron James shot 53.5% on 15.2 attempts per game.

2012-14 KD, averaged 54.1% on 14.3 attempts per game.

1992 Scottie Pippen shot 52.6% on 15.6 2's a game.

6'1 PG Kevin Johnson in 1991 shot 52.9% on 14.2 2's a game.

That seems a bit odd that the latter two would have comparable volume and efficiency to the former two no?

When accounting for volume, Shaq shot his highest TS%, EFG% and 2P% in 1994, his second year in the league and only really came close again in 2000.

Idk, this is all wishy washy and I'm very sleepy lol but long story short the 80-1997 has some ridiculously high 2 point percentages per volume that weren't close to being touched from 05-16 and I highly doubt it's just because those players were monumentally better.

part of it may be more offensive rebounding or higher free throw rates (free throws dont inprove efg, but a miss that leads to free throws doesnt lower efg as a missed jumpshot would)

A common observation many people have is weaker half court defense partially related to chargin the offensive board

btw, you should still make your thread, it could spark great discussion

[penbeast0]

It could also be much stronger post offenses and offenses that play off the threat of post offense, not necessarily lesser defense. Or it could be that spamming 3 pointers is a great strategy if you have Curry and Klay Thompson but isn't such a great thing for average teams. Lots of explanations.

[ceoofkobefans]

I will rank the guys by how much worse I think they will get (1 is Regresses the most 10 is regresses the least)


1. Dennis Rodman
2. Patrick Ewing
3. Charles Barkley
4. Penny Hardaway
5. Clyde Drexler
6. Scottie Pippen
7. Gary Payton
8. Karl Malone
9. Shaquille O’Neal
10. John Stockon

I’m not SUPER confident on these rankings outside of a few but these are what I feel like they would be.

[ty 4191]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the EFG% of the 80's to 1997 to be basically the same as 2005-16 (I think a single percentage of less difference) despite a severe lack of 3's, surely that means that they made 2's at a much higher percentage? And if they made 2's at a higher percentage, that'd mean that defence wasn't as good in that time period as it has been from 05-16?

It just might, my friend. Great pickup there!

What are people's thoughts on this?