What former players get completely WRONG about today's NBA

[ScrantonBulls]

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."

So you don't even remember which rule change it was, but you're sure it changed scoring... Jerry Stackhouse scored 30 ppg in the 2000-2001 season. That was the 3rd lowest scoring year by PPG in the modern NBA behind the 98-99 and 03-04 seasons. Yes, it was lower scoring than all of those other "tough" 90s seasons that you yearn for. Honestly dude, you have zero idea what you are talking about. You're just making things up at this point. You've been called out for being completely wrong about this Jerry Stackhouse fact before, yet you keep repeating it.

[bledredwine]

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."

So you don't even remember which rule change it was, but you're sure it changed scoring... Jerry Stackhouse scored 30 ppg in the 2000-2001 season. That was the 3rd lowest scoring year by PPG in the modern NBA behind the 98-99 and 03-04 seasons. Yes, it was lower scoring than all of those other "tough" 90s seasons that you yearn for. Honestly dude, you have zero idea what you are talking about. You're just making things up at this point. You've been called out for being completely wrong about this Jerry Stackhouse fact before, yet you keep repeating it.

I know it’s three sec and handchecking but forget which was the more drastic change- 3 sec i believe. I did it nearly two decades ago dude. I got so frustrated at the game because it looked like players were getting free layups in transition.

[ScrantonBulls]

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."

So you don't even remember which rule change it was, but you're sure it changed scoring... Jerry Stackhouse scored 30 ppg in the 2000-2001 season. That was the 3rd lowest scoring year by PPG in the modern NBA behind the 98-99 and 03-04 seasons. Yes, it was lower scoring than all of those other "tough" 90s seasons that you yearn for. Honestly dude, you have zero idea what you are talking about. You're just making things up at this point. You've been called out for being completely wrong about this Jerry Stackhouse fact before, yet you keep repeating it.

I know it’s three sec and handchecking but forget which was the more drastic change- 3 sec i believe. I did it nearly two decades ago dude. I got so frustrated at the game because it looked like players were getting free layups in transition.

Nope, that was before the 2001-02 season. So again, why is it that Jerry Stackhouse would never score 30 ppg in the 90s like he did in 2000-01? Despite 2000-01 having a lower average ppg than every season in the 90s except for 98-99.

[og15]

Careful with blanket claims
Big general blanket claims can always get us in trouble. The reason is that as soon as you find just ONE counter example, the whole claim is disproven and crumbles and therefore any argument specifically based on that claim also crumbles. Of course we can always just double down or disappear only to surface with the same claim again, but I'm assuming people discussing in somewhat good faith.

Stackhouse did 30 PPG in a 90's basketball setting and style
The claim that there's no way Stackhouse would average 30 ppg in a season in the 90's just doesn't make sense.

Not a yearly 30 ppg scorer
Had one 30 ppg season in 00-01
Best scoring seasons were 99-00 and 00-01
00-01: No Zone (added 01-02), 04-05 hand checking clarification not yet added

The actual hardest time to score was a couple years after the addition of zone defense. It was a combination of:

Zone Defense Allowed + Better Utilization by teams
90's Illegal Defense Based Roster Builds (Poor shooting and spacing)
Less Strict Hand Checking

The was actually around 03-04. The illegal defense seasons were EASIER to score against if your spacing was not very good, because you could spam isolation, which is how Stackhouse scored 30 ppg.

Facts about 00-01

Pace was 91.3
Only 3 90's seasons were slower
Team building and style was 90's basketball
Year changing from 99 to 00 didn't suddenly change basketball

It's the same as how we always remind people that 90's basketball is not homogenous. The early 90's was still closer to 80's basketball. It wasn't like it went from 89 to 90 and them suddenly everyone changed their team build and started playing slow

Outlier Seasons Happen
Stackhouse averaged 29.8 ppg the same way that Michael Adams averaged 26.5 ppg in just 35.5 mpg in 90-91 while taking 8.5 3PA/G. Of course if you want to be a good team, Stackhouse averaging 30 ppg is not it, that's why it was an outlier, but whether he can put that up in the 90's is in no way in question, he could.


Don't overcomplicate, but don't oversimplify
People sometimes get too simplistic with things. For example, more lenient hand checking officiating has some effects, but people will say, "well if they just allowed more hand checking, it would significantly cut down the three's". They insert a reality where the REASON teams were taking far fewer three's was because they COULDN'T due to the defense, not because fewer players were as good at it, and not because it wasn't the strategy.

Like mentioned earlier, you find one counter example and it crumbles. Michael Adams takes 8.5 3PA in 90-91, he's a 5'10 guard, so if it was defense preventing players from shooting more three's, how could one of the smallest skinniest guys get off so many? We can move the goalposts or shift the argument and say they were giving them to him, or he wasn't being guarded out there, and if he was, he would have been prevented. Film doesn't support that though.

Baron Davis launched up 8.7/game in 03-04, this was when teams had implemented zone defense more effectively than in 01-02 and even 03-04 (zone principles, loading up a side, etc, vs an actual zone defense), AND hand checking was still more loosely officiated, and in the 00's you weren't just giving people three's.

...but the actual main reality is that most three's are catch and shoot. If teams in the past could generate catch and shoot jumpers in general, guess what? They will figure out how to generate catch and shoot three's off initial actions and off their stars attacking.

And we saw that when they 3PT line was shortened and more accessible in the mid-90's, attempts went up more than 50% instantly and we're going up year by year until they moved it back. The 96-97 3PA/G wasn't matched again until 06-07. Clearly showing that it was accessibility (player skill) that was the bigger limiting factor.

[og15]

He also asserted that posting was boring when you heard no complaints about it

Everyone is complaining about the game right now because the whole damned thing is boring. You guys can find as many niche videos as you want but the people at large know how boring and stripped of defense it is when they see it. He is right about one thing- superstars weren’t playing point as often since the court wasn’t open.

The video specifically said, "this clearout back down maneuver (showing the Barkley backdown from the perimeter, Mark Jackson did it a lot too) was considered so boring". Why would you argue against this? There WAS a lot of complaint about that type of posting up which is why the NBA added 5 second back to the basket rule, that rule didn't come out of nowhere. You inferred something that wasn't there, he didn't say posting up was boring, he said the clear out one side of the court (possible due to illegal defense) so that a player could just backdown his man all the way to the basket was considered boring.

Again, that's why they added 5 second back to the basket. Of course you could still do mid-post face up clear out isolation, and that is why the NBA started allowing zone defense. These rules didn't randomly happen in a vacuum, it's not accurate at all to suggest people weren't complaining, they were, A LOT, and even about minor things like how the players dressed. Now, if you want to argue that Jordan being so good masked some of the complaints and issues with playstyle and rules, you're VERY correct, but that's not actually helping the case that people liked it. After he was gone, then you didn't have a super exciting guy AND you had crappy iso ball still going on.

Complaints about late 90's and 00's style

Now if we're saying there weren't YouTube videos and tons of internet stuff with people complaining, well, DUH, it was not 2020, so of course we're not going to find that.

Designed to improve the flow and pace of the game and reduce teams' dependance on isolation plays, the new rules will be tested during summer league play before officially taking effect next season.

Why would you want to change a dependence on isolation if no one is complaining about it?

"Our belief is that the game has evolved, and the product we have presently was one that needed attention," said Colangelo, who chaired a select committee that proposed the changes. "The game has changed in the sense that we've lost a lot of fluidity. We've evolved into an isolation game because of our defensive guidelines, and we weren't satisfied with the way the game looked."

Why would you say the game has lost fluidity if it was fluid? Why would you not be satisfied with the way the game looked if no one was complaining?

The vote was 22-6 in favor of the rule changes with one owner abstaining. A two-thirds majority was required for passage, meaning at least 20 of the 29 teams were needed for the vote to pass.

Several players and coaches were opposed to the changes, believing the NBA is making too big of a move in response to lower scores, declining television ratings and flat attendance figures.

People were certainly complaining with their views and attendance
http://static.espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0412/1172176.html

Which is what the league is hoping for with scoring stuck at historic lows of 94.6 points per team per game this season on 44.2 percent shooting.

As Casey Stengel might have said, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Not based on the way it has looked in recent years with poor shooting and decreased movement making for a less appealing product. Some blame that for declines in TV ratings and attendance. The committee’s recommendations are a response to those concerns.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2001/04/01/if-zone-defenses-come-in-stars-may-go-out/

I lived through it too, obviously my join date gives it away, so it is crazy to me that we would be arguing that there wasn't a TON of complaining about late 90's and early 00's basketball.

It is a daring experiment that proponents say will return classic basketball–cutting, passing and better shooting. Opponents say scores will plummet further and the individual stars of the game, such as Vince Carter and Kobe Bryant, will be neutralized.

So what happened? Scores initially went up, then teams devised new defensive strategies with zone and they went down, then the NBA made a little more tweaking, but teams also started changing their builds, and it went up.

If you look around that time, teams who had roster builds with shooting did not get affected by rule changes. Dallas for example had their Ortg go up in 03-04, then down in 04-05 (lost Nash).

Popular team build at the time

But coaches such as Miami’s Pat Riley, who long has relied on a two-man post-up game, say times are changing.

“I think the philosophy now is about versatility, quickness, mobility, stretching the game,” Riley said. “The philosophy has transcended getting a big man.

“This is the game of the 21st Century.”

I didn't even see this originally in the article, but I actually cited two of these teams and said the exact same thing earlier, including how Jordan was masking the issues with the playstyle

A game played by Milwaukee, Dallas, Sacramento and Orlando, perimeter teams who are now four of the top-five-scoring teams in the NBA.

Although those teams don’t have anyone like Jordan, they are fun to watch. And that’s what the NBA is hoping will happen to all its teams.

Yup, even there saying that Jordan was masking a problem they basically already knew they had and there were lots of complaints about


How some players and coaches felt about zone

Shaquille O'Neal had a one-word response.
"Stinks," the Los Angeles Lakers star said. "I have a lot to say, but not now.

"I don't think there will be more scoring; I think there will be less," Orlando coach Doc Rivers said.

Lakers coach Phil Jackson thinks the changes will help O'Neal.
"I think it'll be an advantage for Shaq, definitely, defensively," Jackson said. "It's going to keep him around the basket with a lot less movement.

http://static.espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0412/1172176.html

One thing is for certain- the game is stripped of defense to the point that even current players and coaches who coached in two eras say that “there’s no defense”or they’ve “made it impossible to defend” (lebron pop draymond for starters)

For sure, until a coach is creative and figures out a way to defend better in the current situation, eg: OKC

Of course how good a team defends is always relative to the rules, playstyle, etc

Defense is inherently harder when more three's are being taken, regardless of rules. Every era could generate open jumpshots off the actions by their stars, modern basketball made most of those jumpshots 3PT shots, that automatically (on average) makes scoring go up and makes defending more difficult even without other aspects.

There can certainly always be unintended consequences:

Charges weren't meant to be a guy running in front of someone and falling, but they are now
Hand checking was meant to just be something you can do to keep with a defender, but they made like 10 revisions to it, because it always escalates to guys fouling people
The rules when made didn't assume that the 3PT shot would explode, but it did, and more free flowing basketball with a high 3PT utilization is simply much harder to defend
etc, etc

If we had all the same rules, but lower 3PT usage and different team builds, teams would all be "better" on defense, well, they would look better. But with the 3PT shot usage and spacing, you now have to maybe help the defense a little more, but with unintended consequences, you are sometimes better off allowing teams to figure out strategies before making rule changes to "fix".

Then you have players who literally existed during the rule changes or had experiences with different rules talking about how the changes made the game so easy for them (Nash credits his success to the rule changes and Luka states how easy three sec makes the game for him to get to the rack).

Nash is correct that there were some benefits for him as an individual player, including his coach and team build when he went to Phoenix. Jordan was also right in a way when he said if there was zone he would not be as good of a player. Yes, playing exactly the same way, but he would have to and would be capable of adjusting.

And that was Jordan’s argument: He believed that allowing any defense, or a zone, enables teams to gang up on the star. Gone will be the highlight-show moves and plays, the ESPN-ization of the game that others contend has been detrimental to sound play.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2001/04/01/if-zone-defenses-come-in-stars-may-go-out/

The concept Jordan and many other guys had of zone though was having zone defense while still having the roster builds and isolation style that teams were doing in the mid to late 90's. Yes, if you have that build and style, zone will harm your production a good amount.

[bledredwine]

Careful with blanket claims
Big general blanket claims can always get us in trouble. The reason is that as soon as you find just ONE counter example, the whole claim is disproven and crumbles and therefore any argument specifically based on that claim also crumbles. Of course we can always just double down or disappear only to surface with the same claim again, but I'm assuming people discussing in somewhat good faith.

Stackhouse did 30 PPG in a 90's basketball setting and style
The claim that there's no way Stackhouse would average 30 ppg in a season in the 90's just doesn't make sense.

Not a yearly 30 ppg scorer
Had one 30 ppg season in 00-01
Best scoring seasons were 99-00 and 00-01
00-01: No Zone (added 01-02), 04-05 hand checking clarification not yet added

The actual hardest time to score was a couple years after the addition of zone defense. It was a combination of:

Zone Defense Allowed + Better Utilization by teams
90's Illegal Defense Based Roster Builds (Poor shooting and spacing)
Less Strict Hand Checking

The was actually around 03-04. The illegal defense seasons were EASIER to score against if your spacing was not very good, because you could spam isolation, which is how Stackhouse scored 30 ppg.

Facts about 00-01

Pace was 91.3
Only 3 90's seasons were slower
Team building and style was 90's basketball
Year changing from 99 to 00 didn't suddenly change basketball

It's the same as how we always remind people that 90's basketball is not homogenous. The early 90's was still closer to 80's basketball. It wasn't like it went from 89 to 90 and them suddenly everyone changed their team build and started playing slow

Outlier Seasons Happen
Stackhouse averaged 29.8 ppg the same way that Michael Adams averaged 26.5 ppg in just 35.5 mpg in 90-91 while taking 8.5 3PA/G. Of course if you want to be a good team, Stackhouse averaging 30 ppg is not it, that's why it was an outlier, but whether he can put that up in the 90's is in no way in question, he could.


Don't overcomplicate, but don't oversimplify
People sometimes get too simplistic with things. For example, more lenient hand checking officiating has some effects, but people will say, "well if they just allowed more hand checking, it would significantly cut down the three's". They insert a reality where the REASON teams were taking far fewer three's was because they COULDN'T due to the defense, not because fewer players were as good at it, and not because it wasn't the strategy.

Like mentioned earlier, you find one counter example and it crumbles. Michael Adams takes 8.5 3PA in 90-91, he's a 5'10 guard, so if it was defense preventing players from shooting more three's, how could one of the smallest skinniest guys get off so many? We can move the goalposts or shift the argument and say they were giving them to him, or he wasn't being guarded out there, and if he was, he would have been prevented. Film doesn't support that though.

Baron Davis launched up 8.7/game in 03-04, this was when teams had implemented zone defense more effectively than in 01-02 and even 03-04 (zone principles, loading up a side, etc, vs an actual zone defense), AND hand checking was still more loosely officiated, and in the 00's you weren't just giving people three's.

...but the actual main reality is that most three's are catch and shoot. If teams in the past could generate catch and shoot jumpers in general, guess what? They will figure out how to generate catch and shoot three's off initial actions and off their stars attacking.

Don't tell me I'm making a blanket claim and learn from below how the 1999 rule changes were actually impacting the game.

You're overlooking the 1999 changes significantly, as those changed the way the game was played completely... though the official ban did take place in 04-05.
I'm not making this up- this is Scottie Pippen telling you directly how it impacted him, just as Nash did. (see below)

1999 - "A defender may not make contact with his hands and/or forearms on an offensive player except below the free throw line
extended"

Look at Pippen discussing the effects in just 1999
In 97-98, they had one of the all time low scoring seasons and were hard at work
mitigating defense already. Just watch and you'll see the implemented rule.

Watch on YouTube

Kenny talks about hand checking at 3:15

Watch on YouTube

This is why I find it maddening that posters deny this. It's just... blatantly obvious and is the reason why I couldn't bear to watch (including non-Bulls teams) after 98.
Literally all of the professional players and coaches openly discuss and admit it. Even players like Joe Johnson, Kobe etc who played post-rule changes spoke about this.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Saying we don't see passes like JKidd did was wild when two of the greatest and most creative passers in league history play today.

It's true though. The game is a 3-point contest. So sure there are dunkers, passers, and so on, but we don't see much of that.

[og15]

Careful with blanket claims
Big general blanket claims can always get us in trouble. The reason is that as soon as you find just ONE counter example, the whole claim is disproven and crumbles and therefore any argument specifically based on that claim also crumbles. Of course we can always just double down or disappear only to surface with the same claim again, but I'm assuming people discussing in somewhat good faith.

Stackhouse did 30 PPG in a 90's basketball setting and style
The claim that there's no way Stackhouse would average 30 ppg in a season in the 90's just doesn't make sense.

Not a yearly 30 ppg scorer
Had one 30 ppg season in 00-01
Best scoring seasons were 99-00 and 00-01
00-01: No Zone (added 01-02), 04-05 hand checking clarification not yet added

The actual hardest time to score was a couple years after the addition of zone defense. It was a combination of:

Zone Defense Allowed + Better Utilization by teams
90's Illegal Defense Based Roster Builds (Poor shooting and spacing)
Less Strict Hand Checking

The was actually around 03-04. The illegal defense seasons were EASIER to score against if your spacing was not very good, because you could spam isolation, which is how Stackhouse scored 30 ppg.

Facts about 00-01

Pace was 91.3
Only 3 90's seasons were slower
Team building and style was 90's basketball
Year changing from 99 to 00 didn't suddenly change basketball

It's the same as how we always remind people that 90's basketball is not homogenous. The early 90's was still closer to 80's basketball. It wasn't like it went from 89 to 90 and them suddenly everyone changed their team build and started playing slow

Outlier Seasons Happen
Stackhouse averaged 29.8 ppg the same way that Michael Adams averaged 26.5 ppg in just 35.5 mpg in 90-91 while taking 8.5 3PA/G. Of course if you want to be a good team, Stackhouse averaging 30 ppg is not it, that's why it was an outlier, but whether he can put that up in the 90's is in no way in question, he could.


Don't overcomplicate, but don't oversimplify
People sometimes get too simplistic with things. For example, more lenient hand checking officiating has some effects, but people will say, "well if they just allowed more hand checking, it would significantly cut down the three's". They insert a reality where the REASON teams were taking far fewer three's was because they COULDN'T due to the defense, not because fewer players were as good at it, and not because it wasn't the strategy.

Like mentioned earlier, you find one counter example and it crumbles. Michael Adams takes 8.5 3PA in 90-91, he's a 5'10 guard, so if it was defense preventing players from shooting more three's, how could one of the smallest skinniest guys get off so many? We can move the goalposts or shift the argument and say they were giving them to him, or he wasn't being guarded out there, and if he was, he would have been prevented. Film doesn't support that though.

Baron Davis launched up 8.7/game in 03-04, this was when teams had implemented zone defense more effectively than in 01-02 and even 03-04 (zone principles, loading up a side, etc, vs an actual zone defense), AND hand checking was still more loosely officiated, and in the 00's you weren't just giving people three's.

...but the actual main reality is that most three's are catch and shoot. If teams in the past could generate catch and shoot jumpers in general, guess what? They will figure out how to generate catch and shoot three's off initial actions and off their stars attacking.

Don't tell me I'm making a blanket claim and learn from below how the 1999 rule changes were actually impacting the game.

You're overlooking the 1999 changes significantly, as those changed the way the game was played completely... though the official ban did take place in 04-05.
I'm not making this up- this is Scottie Pippen telling you directly how it impacted him, just as Nash did. (see below)

1999 - "A defender may not make contact with his hands and/or forearms on an offensive player except below the free throw line
extended"

Look at Pippen discussing the effects in just 1999
In 97-98, they had one of the all time low scoring seasons and were hard at work
mitigating defense already. Just watch and you'll see the implemented rule.

Watch on YouTube

Kenny talks about hand checking at 3:15

Watch on YouTube

This is why I find it maddening that posters deny this. It's just... blatantly obvious and is the reason why I couldn't bear to watch (including non-Bulls teams) after 98.
Literally all of the professional players and coaches openly discuss and admit it. Even players like Joe Johnson, Kobe etc who played post-rule changes spoke about this.

They banned it like 10 times, 99 they banned, then there were too many tick tack fouls, so they adjusted again in 00-01 or 01-02. Then they clarified again in 04-05 because it wasn't actually being called as they wanted.

Hand checking had been banned and clarified multiple times since like 1977 or so. They always made a rule when it was getting out of hand, but how hand checking functioned was not the same every year until 99 or 04-05. Teams didn't hand check in 90-91 like they were in 97-98 for example.

Regardless, hand checking was not going to prevent Stackhouse chucking up 24 FGA/G.

Stackhouse was drawing 7.2 FTA/G in 95-96 as a rookie taking 15 FGA/G, and 8.2 FTA/G in his second season taking 16 FGA/G.

In 00-01 he took 24 FGA and 10.1 FTA, there's nothing actually impressive there. He got more FTA primarily because his touches jumped massively. It was just a year of a guy inefficiently chucking away shots on a bad team which can happen in any era and isn't an argument for anything except that players can chuck up shots inefficiently on bad teams.

Stackhouse wasn't a point guard attacking from the middle of the floor, Stackhouse was a wing launching up whenever he got the ball and attacking off isolation, hand checking wasn't preventing him from throwing up shots at 40% FG while he averaged 4 tpg.

It's just not an example of much. Scoring didn't go up much relative to pace increase from 98-99 (or use 97-98 since 98-99 was lockout and a lot of guys sucked) to 99-00. FTA went down 0.5 per game and fouls were up 1.1 per game.

Skipping lockout season, from 97-98 to 99-00:
Pace up 93.1 (from 90.3)
Ortg down 0.9
Ppg up 1.6 ppg,
FTA down 0.5 FTA
Fouls up 0.9

I actually can't see any argument for why the hand checking rule would make someone unable to bear to watch after 98, it doesn't really check out why that would have made a significant difference in watching experience, but to each their own. There were a few too many touch fouls, then they adjusted it, then it was too hard to score with zone, more looser perimeter contact officiating, so they adjusted. There was a good amount of time it was mostly the same basketball in terms of team build and style, but Jordan was gone.

That's the real reason people were tuning out, let's be real. It was a lot of lower quality basketball (league as a whole with a very few teams as exceptions at that time) saved by the brilliance of Jordan. Then he retires and what do you have left?

[dhsilv2]

"We used to play defense in the all-star game"

Watch on YouTube

This is like bad boys pistons level defense compared to last years all star game.

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

[og15]

"We used to play defense in the all-star game"

Watch on YouTube

This is like bad boys pistons level defense compared to last years all star game.

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

Their Drtg was also achieved without having to guard the 3PT line much at all and without having to guard in as much space. You can't not play defense and hold opponents to 105 Ortg.

The problem actually isn't about whether what they did was great or not in their own space, it was, and it's cool to see though the hacking aspect of it I'm not a fan of that non basketball stuff.

The problem is being so ingrained in complaining and actually missing some of the quality stuff because one has convinced themselves there can't be any. To not enjoy Jokic's passing because you're settled that there's no more creativity or great passing for example would be wild. To not enjoy, watch and appreciate OKC's defense because one has determined that It's impossible to play defense and no one plays defense because every other week you see one 130 pt game would be crazy but that's essentially what some people want to do.

That's different from having dislikes or complaints, it's all the sweeping statements that are kind of funny to me. And yes, even the All-Star game is more fun with 60% effort than with 30% effort.

[LockoutSeason]

Still haven’t watched this video. I don’t need to watch a 20 minute breakdown on why today’s NBA is better than ‘90s NBA. I can see that for myself.

[dhsilv2]

It's 23 minutes, so nope.

Are you serious?

Yep! I watched four minutes and it was already full of crap. Videos like this isolate rarer events and act like they happened all the time in the game. He also asserted that posting was boring when you heard no complaints about it
Everyone is complaining about the game right now because the whole damned thing is boring. You guys can find as many niche videos as you want but the people at large know how boring and stripped of defense it is when they see it. He is right about one thing- superstars weren’t playing point as often since the court wasn’t open.

Just like I watch seek high quality news, I also need accurate, unexaggerated videos that display truth instead of agenda. I’d hope that you can understand that.

One thing is for certain- the game is stripped of defense to the point that even current players and coaches who coached in two eras say that “there’s no defense”or they’ve “made it impossible to defend” (lebron pop draymond for starters)

Then you have players who literally existed during the rule changes or had experiences with different rules talking about how the changes made the game so easy for them (Nash credits his success to the rule changes and Luka states how easy three sec makes the game for him to get to the rack).

Scoring is more accessible, just as the commissioner stated with the rule changes and this is the garbage you get. That’s why old players are complaining.

Anyway, we’ve been through this over and over and still, most of the current fans choose to ignore this and remain ignorant of the obvious. So why should I take threads like this seriously?

I shudder to think what kind of misinformed news you're watching given this.

[Haldi]

Yep! I watched four minutes and it was already full of crap. Videos like this isolate rarer events and act like they happened all the time in the game.

Ben specifically showed the first few halfcourt possessions in the certain games, it's not "isolating rarer events". You can't deny that offensive plays are more complex now than ever before on average.

He also asserted that posting was boring when you heard no complaints about it

That's because people remember great post players doing their work. They don't remember how old Bill Cartwright posted up on Bulls offense and that the results were not pretty.

Don't get me wrong, I love good post game but not every post up is exciting - just like some players make three point shooting exciting, but not all of them.

Everyone is complaining about the game right now because the whole damned thing is boring.

I disagree and I watch more old basketball than anyone here - so what do you do now?

You guys can find as many niche videos as you want but the people at large know how boring and stripped of defense it is when they see it. He is right about one thing- superstars weren’t playing point as often since the court wasn’t open.

How can you watch even the first 4 minutes and keep talking that defense doesn't exist? How can you be so intelectually dishonest?

Just like I watch seek high quality news, I also need accurate, unexaggerated videos that display truth instead of agenda. I’d hope that you can understand that.

No worries, I can create unedited video comparing each possessions from 2025 game and any 1990s game you want.

One thing is for certain- the game is stripped of defense to the point that even current players and coaches who coached in two eras say that “there’s no defense”or they’ve “made it impossible to defend” (lebron pop draymond for starters)

Do you know why it's so hard to defend? Because teams are way more skilled at exploiting openings than ever before. You are forced to guard majority of players around the 3P line these days and it's extremely tasking. Players move without the ball way more, they use way more sophisticated playbooks etc.

There are reasons unrelated to that as well - like rules changing, but if you use 1990s rules the league wouldn't suddenly stop using threes.

Then you have players who literally existed during the rule changes or had experiences with different rules talking about how the changes made the game so easy for them (Nash credits his success to the rule changes and Luka states how easy three sec makes the game for him to get to the rack).

We're in 2025, 2005 is like two eras apart from now...

Anyway, we’ve been through this over and over and still, most of the current fans choose to ignore this and remain ignorant of the obvious. So why should I take threads like this seriously?

Because Ben, who watches more basketball than you anyone of you, actually provides arguments backed up with evidences on the tape. You can't provide any contargument, so you just ignore his arguments. Ben isn't "current fan" he started watching basketball in Larry Bird's era.

Again, it's blatantly false that only young generation ignore everything, we have plenty of people old enough to watch old games AND people still watching a lot of historical stuff that agree with Ben here. It looks like ignorance isn't our problem.

I watch games, not just highlights. I’m not choosing what I remember. This video is heavily exagggerated, but that’s what it takes when the majority of people see how stripped down and boring the current state of the game is. At the least, I would hope you could admit that there’s a disproportionate overabundance of threes right now and that’s not what people want to see.

That’s not what YOU want to see. It absolutely is what I want to see and lots of other people too. You can scream low ratings all you want but the product that is ‘NBA basketball’ has never been so popular and as never sold so well.

Growing in the 80s and 90s, the things I could not stand were tall guys making the NBA despite having little to no basketball skills whatsoever. You hate 3 pointers. All of this is just our opinions on how we like the game to be played. Then there’s the objective truth, that players and systems are much better than they were in the past. And this is thanks to those older eras for figuring out a ton of things and seeing things that didn’t work out so well.

I’ve said this before but it seems not clear enough for a lot of fans of this sport for some reason (fans of all other sports get it) - there is not a single sport in the world, that the best players ever to play that sport all came within the first few decades of that sports pro league starting. By the simple fact that all newer players learn more and more from older players, what you seem to wish to happen, that MJ will forever be enshrined as the best basketball of all time, cannot happen. He’s already been passed and will again and again, because the skills of tomorrow’s players and how they play the game will keep improving and improving.

Again, there is not a single sport, that this doesn’t happen in. You would think the insane skill increase in today’s shooters (and everything else except post play) would be enough, but instead, the old grouchy fans of this sport find (some of the dumbest) ways to diminish even that, but thankfully there are many other sports that have even more glaring proof of what im saying, which im sure will all still be hand waved.

Just for fun, take a look at the evolution of sports like UFC and skateboarding, which are also very young sports, even younger than basketball. You have kids these days that make Tony Hawks record breaking 900 look like just another good move. And if you go back another 10-15 years you’ll see the moves definitely don’t get better. As for UFC, im not the most knowledgeable about this sport but definitely love it, but I saw a video not too long ago where they talk about this exactly, and say exactly what im saying now. Just like it wouldn’t even be fair to have any of the top ten teams today play the 86 celtics or the 96 bulls, it wouldn’t be fair to have any of the top fighters today fight the very best guy in the 90s.

Its sad you refuse to watch videos like this and to truly understand sports, since you do seem like a big fan, cause if you allowed yourself to learn, it would make your head spin to know how much better players are today. I’ve mentioned this too before, bit people like to always highlight the shooting, but the use of the left hand is a way better indicator of it. The vast amount of players that can finish with their left compared to the very few that could back then is a crater size gap of training difference between the two.

[Big J]

This is like bad boys pistons level defense compared to last years all star game.

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

Their Drtg was also achieved without having to guard the 3PT line much at all and without having to guard in as much space. You can't not play defense and hold opponents to 105 Ortg.

The problem actually isn't about whether what they did was great or not in their own space, it was, and it's cool to see though the hacking aspect of it I'm not a fan of that non basketball stuff.

The problem is being so ingrained in complaining and actually missing some of the quality stuff because one has convinced themselves there can't be any. To not enjoy Jokic's passing because you're settled that there's no more creativity or great passing for example would be wild. To not enjoy, watch and appreciate OKC's defense because one has determined that It's impossible to play defense and no one plays defense because every other week you see one 130 pt game would be crazy but that's essentially what some people want to do.

That's different from having dislikes or complaints, it's all the sweeping statements that are kind of funny to me. And yes, even the All-Star game is more fun with 60% effort than with 30% effort.

The general public doesn’t want a highly nuanced breakdown of OKC’s defensive rotations. Basketball shows are all about ratings. It’s why Zach Lowe got fired while Perk kept his job. You can think sweeping statements are funny, but hot takes and debates are what keep people’s attention.

[og15]

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

Their Drtg was also achieved without having to guard the 3PT line much at all and without having to guard in as much space. You can't not play defense and hold opponents to 105 Ortg.

The problem actually isn't about whether what they did was great or not in their own space, it was, and it's cool to see though the hacking aspect of it I'm not a fan of that non basketball stuff.

The problem is being so ingrained in complaining and actually missing some of the quality stuff because one has convinced themselves there can't be any. To not enjoy Jokic's passing because you're settled that there's no more creativity or great passing for example would be wild. To not enjoy, watch and appreciate OKC's defense because one has determined that It's impossible to play defense and no one plays defense because every other week you see one 130 pt game would be crazy but that's essentially what some people want to do.

That's different from having dislikes or complaints, it's all the sweeping statements that are kind of funny to me. And yes, even the All-Star game is more fun with 60% effort than with 30% effort.

The general public doesn’t want a highly nuanced breakdown of OKC’s defensive rotations. Basketball shows are all about ratings. It’s why Zach Lowe got fired while Perk kept his job. You can think sweeping statements are funny, but hot takes and debates are what keep people’s attention.

That is totally fair, but I think you should still give it to them in the midst of the hot takes

[dhsilv2]

This is like bad boys pistons level defense compared to last years all star game.

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

Their Drtg was also achieved without having to guard the 3PT line much at all and without having to guard in as much space. You can't not play defense and hold opponents to 105 Ortg.

The problem actually isn't about whether what they did was great or not in their own space, it was, and it's cool to see though the hacking aspect of it I'm not a fan of that non basketball stuff.

The problem is being so ingrained in complaining and actually missing some of the quality stuff because one has convinced themselves there can't be any. To not enjoy Jokic's passing because you're settled that there's no more creativity or great passing for example would be wild. To not enjoy, watch and appreciate OKC's defense because one has determined that It's impossible to play defense and no one plays defense because every other week you see one 130 pt game would be crazy but that's essentially what some people want to do.

That's different from having dislikes or complaints, it's all the sweeping statements that are kind of funny to me. And yes, even the All-Star game is more fun with 60% effort than with 30% effort.

Exactly. I hate the modern NFL. I miss down the middle running. I don't like everything coming from the QB. But I'd be insane if I were here talking about how the NFL lacks creativity. I just don't enjoy the product. And it's fine to not enjoy the NBA product. But it's not OK to claim the game isn't creative. That teams are more uniform in how they play than in the past and so on.

[dhsilv2]

Funniest part of the Bad Boys who get all this defensive love. Their first title they gave up 104.7 per 100. OKC is giving up 105.2 this year. And yet somehow, nobody plays defense in the NBA anymore is a narrative. And the Pistons are this symbol for greatness on the defensive end.

Their Drtg was also achieved without having to guard the 3PT line much at all and without having to guard in as much space. You can't not play defense and hold opponents to 105 Ortg.

The problem actually isn't about whether what they did was great or not in their own space, it was, and it's cool to see though the hacking aspect of it I'm not a fan of that non basketball stuff.

The problem is being so ingrained in complaining and actually missing some of the quality stuff because one has convinced themselves there can't be any. To not enjoy Jokic's passing because you're settled that there's no more creativity or great passing for example would be wild. To not enjoy, watch and appreciate OKC's defense because one has determined that It's impossible to play defense and no one plays defense because every other week you see one 130 pt game would be crazy but that's essentially what some people want to do.

That's different from having dislikes or complaints, it's all the sweeping statements that are kind of funny to me. And yes, even the All-Star game is more fun with 60% effort than with 30% effort.

The general public doesn’t want a highly nuanced breakdown of OKC’s defensive rotations. Basketball shows are all about ratings. It’s why Zach Lowe got fired while Perk kept his job. You can think sweeping statements are funny, but hot takes and debates are what keep people’s attention.

Or ESPN hasn't figured out how to do it. The problem with your argument is that Zach was never doing that on air in the first place. He only ever did that online. ESPN has never done a good job with their basketball coverage. That was fine when they didn't have the games, but they've never even tried to do it once they had the games. As a result they aren't doing their job to actually market the game to get more people to watch it.

BTW as bad as Inside the NBA is. They do more work to break down games than anything I've seen on ESPN. And aren't they the best rated basketball show?

[bledredwine]

Careful with blanket claims
Big general blanket claims can always get us in trouble. The reason is that as soon as you find just ONE counter example, the whole claim is disproven and crumbles and therefore any argument specifically based on that claim also crumbles. Of course we can always just double down or disappear only to surface with the same claim again, but I'm assuming people discussing in somewhat good faith.

Stackhouse did 30 PPG in a 90's basketball setting and style
The claim that there's no way Stackhouse would average 30 ppg in a season in the 90's just doesn't make sense.

Not a yearly 30 ppg scorer
Had one 30 ppg season in 00-01
Best scoring seasons were 99-00 and 00-01
00-01: No Zone (added 01-02), 04-05 hand checking clarification not yet added

The actual hardest time to score was a couple years after the addition of zone defense. It was a combination of:

Zone Defense Allowed + Better Utilization by teams
90's Illegal Defense Based Roster Builds (Poor shooting and spacing)
Less Strict Hand Checking

The was actually around 03-04. The illegal defense seasons were EASIER to score against if your spacing was not very good, because you could spam isolation, which is how Stackhouse scored 30 ppg.

Facts about 00-01

Pace was 91.3
Only 3 90's seasons were slower
Team building and style was 90's basketball
Year changing from 99 to 00 didn't suddenly change basketball

It's the same as how we always remind people that 90's basketball is not homogenous. The early 90's was still closer to 80's basketball. It wasn't like it went from 89 to 90 and them suddenly everyone changed their team build and started playing slow

Outlier Seasons Happen
Stackhouse averaged 29.8 ppg the same way that Michael Adams averaged 26.5 ppg in just 35.5 mpg in 90-91 while taking 8.5 3PA/G. Of course if you want to be a good team, Stackhouse averaging 30 ppg is not it, that's why it was an outlier, but whether he can put that up in the 90's is in no way in question, he could.


Don't overcomplicate, but don't oversimplify
People sometimes get too simplistic with things. For example, more lenient hand checking officiating has some effects, but people will say, "well if they just allowed more hand checking, it would significantly cut down the three's". They insert a reality where the REASON teams were taking far fewer three's was because they COULDN'T due to the defense, not because fewer players were as good at it, and not because it wasn't the strategy.

Like mentioned earlier, you find one counter example and it crumbles. Michael Adams takes 8.5 3PA in 90-91, he's a 5'10 guard, so if it was defense preventing players from shooting more three's, how could one of the smallest skinniest guys get off so many? We can move the goalposts or shift the argument and say they were giving them to him, or he wasn't being guarded out there, and if he was, he would have been prevented. Film doesn't support that though.

Baron Davis launched up 8.7/game in 03-04, this was when teams had implemented zone defense more effectively than in 01-02 and even 03-04 (zone principles, loading up a side, etc, vs an actual zone defense), AND hand checking was still more loosely officiated, and in the 00's you weren't just giving people three's.

...but the actual main reality is that most three's are catch and shoot. If teams in the past could generate catch and shoot jumpers in general, guess what? They will figure out how to generate catch and shoot three's off initial actions and off their stars attacking.

Don't tell me I'm making a blanket claim and learn from below how the 1999 rule changes were actually impacting the game.

You're overlooking the 1999 changes significantly, as those changed the way the game was played completely... though the official ban did take place in 04-05.
I'm not making this up- this is Scottie Pippen telling you directly how it impacted him, just as Nash did. (see below)

1999 - "A defender may not make contact with his hands and/or forearms on an offensive player except below the free throw line
extended"

Look at Pippen discussing the effects in just 1999
In 97-98, they had one of the all time low scoring seasons and were hard at work
mitigating defense already. Just watch and you'll see the implemented rule.

Watch on YouTube

Kenny talks about hand checking at 3:15

Watch on YouTube

This is why I find it maddening that posters deny this. It's just... blatantly obvious and is the reason why I couldn't bear to watch (including non-Bulls teams) after 98.
Literally all of the professional players and coaches openly discuss and admit it. Even players like Joe Johnson, Kobe etc who played post-rule changes spoke about this.

They banned it like 10 times, 99 they banned, then there were too many tick tack fouls, so they adjusted again in 00-01 or 01-02. Then they clarified again in 04-05 because it wasn't actually being called as they wanted.

Hand checking had been banned and clarified multiple times since like 1977 or so. They always made a rule when it was getting out of hand, but how hand checking functioned was not the same every year until 99 or 04-05. Teams didn't hand check in 90-91 like they were in 97-98 for example.

Regardless, hand checking was not going to prevent Stackhouse chucking up 24 FGA/G.

Stackhouse was drawing 7.2 FTA/G in 95-96 as a rookie taking 15 FGA/G, and 8.2 FTA/G in his second season taking 16 FGA/G.

In 00-01 he took 24 FGA and 10.1 FTA, there's nothing actually impressive there. He got more FTA primarily because his touches jumped massively. It was just a year of a guy inefficiently chucking away shots on a bad team which can happen in any era and isn't an argument for anything except that players can chuck up shots inefficiently on bad teams.

Stackhouse wasn't a point guard attacking from the middle of the floor, Stackhouse was a wing launching up whenever he got the ball and attacking off isolation, hand checking wasn't preventing him from throwing up shots at 40% FG while he averaged 4 tpg.

It's just not an example of much. Scoring didn't go up much relative to pace increase from 98-99 (or use 97-98 since 98-99 was lockout and a lot of guys sucked) to 99-00. FTA went down 0.5 per game and fouls were up 1.1 per game.

Skipping lockout season, from 97-98 to 99-00:
Pace up 93.1 (from 90.3)
Ortg down 0.9
Ppg up 1.6 ppg,
FTA down 0.5 FTA
Fouls up 0.9

I actually can't see any argument for why the hand checking rule would make someone unable to bear to watch after 98, it doesn't really check out why that would have made a significant difference in watching experience, but to each their own. There were a few too many touch fouls, then they adjusted it, then it was too hard to score with zone, more looser perimeter contact officiating, so they adjusted. There was a good amount of time it was mostly the same basketball in terms of team build and style, but Jordan was gone.

That's the real reason people were tuning out, let's be real. It was a lot of lower quality basketball (league as a whole with a very few teams as exceptions at that time) saved by the brilliance of Jordan. Then he retires and what do you have left?

I tuned out because the game started looking like a joke and I’m a defensive minded athlete to begin with.

Yes, handchecking clearly impacted and mitigated defense, as Scottie Pippen and Lenny just explained you. Yes, I got annoyed by it and chose not to watch the game because there was no aggression and easy buckets comparatively.

You can choose what you’d like to believe and ignore the top fifty players like Pippen Nash KG Jordan etc who played through this transition first hand and understand it.

In the meantime, I’d appreciate it if you can find one interview of a player who played through both eras and said that the rules didn’t make defense more challenging or stated that the challenge of scoring remained the same.
This makes a big difference instead of working circles around what I say with your own narrative. Videos are worth a thousand pictures and pictures a thousand words, and videos of professionals explaining how it impacted the game for themselves trumps all.

[ScrantonBulls]

Don't tell me I'm making a blanket claim and learn from below how the 1999 rule changes were actually impacting the game.

You're overlooking the 1999 changes significantly, as those changed the way the game was played completely... though the official ban did take place in 04-05.
I'm not making this up- this is Scottie Pippen telling you directly how it impacted him, just as Nash did. (see below)

1999 - "A defender may not make contact with his hands and/or forearms on an offensive player except below the free throw line
extended"

Look at Pippen discussing the effects in just 1999
In 97-98, they had one of the all time low scoring seasons and were hard at work
mitigating defense already. Just watch and you'll see the implemented rule.

Watch on YouTube

Kenny talks about hand checking at 3:15

Watch on YouTube

This is why I find it maddening that posters deny this. It's just... blatantly obvious and is the reason why I couldn't bear to watch (including non-Bulls teams) after 98.
Literally all of the professional players and coaches openly discuss and admit it. Even players like Joe Johnson, Kobe etc who played post-rule changes spoke about this.

They banned it like 10 times, 99 they banned, then there were too many tick tack fouls, so they adjusted again in 00-01 or 01-02. Then they clarified again in 04-05 because it wasn't actually being called as they wanted.

Hand checking had been banned and clarified multiple times since like 1977 or so. They always made a rule when it was getting out of hand, but how hand checking functioned was not the same every year until 99 or 04-05. Teams didn't hand check in 90-91 like they were in 97-98 for example.

Regardless, hand checking was not going to prevent Stackhouse chucking up 24 FGA/G.

Stackhouse was drawing 7.2 FTA/G in 95-96 as a rookie taking 15 FGA/G, and 8.2 FTA/G in his second season taking 16 FGA/G.

In 00-01 he took 24 FGA and 10.1 FTA, there's nothing actually impressive there. He got more FTA primarily because his touches jumped massively. It was just a year of a guy inefficiently chucking away shots on a bad team which can happen in any era and isn't an argument for anything except that players can chuck up shots inefficiently on bad teams.

Stackhouse wasn't a point guard attacking from the middle of the floor, Stackhouse was a wing launching up whenever he got the ball and attacking off isolation, hand checking wasn't preventing him from throwing up shots at 40% FG while he averaged 4 tpg.

It's just not an example of much. Scoring didn't go up much relative to pace increase from 98-99 (or use 97-98 since 98-99 was lockout and a lot of guys sucked) to 99-00. FTA went down 0.5 per game and fouls were up 1.1 per game.

Skipping lockout season, from 97-98 to 99-00:
Pace up 93.1 (from 90.3)
Ortg down 0.9
Ppg up 1.6 ppg,
FTA down 0.5 FTA
Fouls up 0.9

I actually can't see any argument for why the hand checking rule would make someone unable to bear to watch after 98, it doesn't really check out why that would have made a significant difference in watching experience, but to each their own. There were a few too many touch fouls, then they adjusted it, then it was too hard to score with zone, more looser perimeter contact officiating, so they adjusted. There was a good amount of time it was mostly the same basketball in terms of team build and style, but Jordan was gone.

That's the real reason people were tuning out, let's be real. It was a lot of lower quality basketball (league as a whole with a very few teams as exceptions at that time) saved by the brilliance of Jordan. Then he retires and what do you have left?

I tuned out because the game started looking like a joke and I’m a defensive minded athlete to begin with.

Yes, handchecking clearly impacted and mitigated defense, as Scottie Pippen and Lenny just explained you. Yes, I got annoyed by it and chose not to watch the game because there was no aggression and easy buckets comparatively.

You can choose what you’d like to believe and ignore the top fifty players like Pippen Nash KG Jordan etc who played through this transition first hand and understand it.

In the meantime, I’d appreciate it if you can find one interview of a player who played through both eras and said that the rules didn’t make defense more challenging or stated that the challenge of scoring remained the same.
This makes a big difference instead of working circles around what I say with your own narrative. Videos are worth a thousand pictures and pictures a thousand words, and videos of professionals explaining how it impacted the game for themselves trumps all.

What happened to "Stackhouse could never score 30 ppg in the 90s", son? Already scurrying away from that one?

[bledredwine]

They banned it like 10 times, 99 they banned, then there were too many tick tack fouls, so they adjusted again in 00-01 or 01-02. Then they clarified again in 04-05 because it wasn't actually being called as they wanted.

Hand checking had been banned and clarified multiple times since like 1977 or so. They always made a rule when it was getting out of hand, but how hand checking functioned was not the same every year until 99 or 04-05. Teams didn't hand check in 90-91 like they were in 97-98 for example.

Regardless, hand checking was not going to prevent Stackhouse chucking up 24 FGA/G.

Stackhouse was drawing 7.2 FTA/G in 95-96 as a rookie taking 15 FGA/G, and 8.2 FTA/G in his second season taking 16 FGA/G.

In 00-01 he took 24 FGA and 10.1 FTA, there's nothing actually impressive there. He got more FTA primarily because his touches jumped massively. It was just a year of a guy inefficiently chucking away shots on a bad team which can happen in any era and isn't an argument for anything except that players can chuck up shots inefficiently on bad teams.

Stackhouse wasn't a point guard attacking from the middle of the floor, Stackhouse was a wing launching up whenever he got the ball and attacking off isolation, hand checking wasn't preventing him from throwing up shots at 40% FG while he averaged 4 tpg.

It's just not an example of much. Scoring didn't go up much relative to pace increase from 98-99 (or use 97-98 since 98-99 was lockout and a lot of guys sucked) to 99-00. FTA went down 0.5 per game and fouls were up 1.1 per game.

Skipping lockout season, from 97-98 to 99-00:
Pace up 93.1 (from 90.3)
Ortg down 0.9
Ppg up 1.6 ppg,
FTA down 0.5 FTA
Fouls up 0.9

I actually can't see any argument for why the hand checking rule would make someone unable to bear to watch after 98, it doesn't really check out why that would have made a significant difference in watching experience, but to each their own. There were a few too many touch fouls, then they adjusted it, then it was too hard to score with zone, more looser perimeter contact officiating, so they adjusted. There was a good amount of time it was mostly the same basketball in terms of team build and style, but Jordan was gone.

That's the real reason people were tuning out, let's be real. It was a lot of lower quality basketball (league as a whole with a very few teams as exceptions at that time) saved by the brilliance of Jordan. Then he retires and what do you have left?

I tuned out because the game started looking like a joke and I’m a defensive minded athlete to begin with.

Yes, handchecking clearly impacted and mitigated defense, as Scottie Pippen and Lenny just explained you. Yes, I got annoyed by it and chose not to watch the game because there was no aggression and easy buckets comparatively.

You can choose what you’d like to believe and ignore the top fifty players like Pippen Nash KG Jordan etc who played through this transition first hand and understand it.

In the meantime, I’d appreciate it if you can find one interview of a player who played through both eras and said that the rules didn’t make defense more challenging or stated that the challenge of scoring remained the same.
This makes a big difference instead of working circles around what I say with your own narrative. Videos are worth a thousand pictures and pictures a thousand words, and videos of professionals explaining how it impacted the game for themselves trumps all.

What happened to "Stackhouse could never score 30 ppg in the 90s", son? Already scurrying away from that one?

Read the post. Rule changed in 99 genius…. if you actually watched the Pippen video, you’d know that. This is why I don’t reply to you- just nothing worth reading or to be taken seriously, and you type like a child with words like “son”. After watching the pIppen video, the stackhouse outburst now makes me look the one who knows what he’s talking about out of the two of us, doesn’t it? Maybe I’m not just making things up and the game has opened up scoring for a more exciting product over time.

And since you insisted…. That’s checkmate on Stackhouse, by the way, in case you missed it again.