Channing Frye: Nostalgia is KILLING the NBA. 90s basketball era with MJ and Kobe was not as clean as you think.

[Frank Lee]

I don’t understand what Fry is so tweaked about… Maybe it’s because nobody gets compared to him? Butthurt over nothing really. In 20 years somebody might say a player reminds them of LeBron or he’s like Stef. I think Channing has some deeper issues here.


I wonder what Perk’s response was.

[zero rings]

I don’t understand what Fry is so tweaked about… Maybe it’s because nobody gets compared to him? Butthurt over nothing really. In 20 years somebody might say a player reminds them of LeBron or he’s like Stef. I think Channing has some deeper issues here.


I wonder what Perk’s response was.

Why does it have to be personal? It seems like Channing is just tired of boomers and their incessant lies.

[Nate505]

The Jordan and Kobe's marketing machines have been so successful that they have turned the most awful to watch period in modern NBA history (the late 90s to early 2000s) into a golden era for the league in the minds of so many people. It's bizarre to me, I for one don't miss at all the low pace and low scoring grindfests of the era or all the guys who tried to be Jordan by chucking lots of shots and failed miserably.

Today's era is much better. Because guys can hit 3s. And 3s are worth more than 2s. So we get guys shooting 3s. And shooting 3s. And more 3s. With some 3s sprinkled in. Because there's nothing more interesting than watching guys shoot 3 after 3 after 3 after 3 after 3 after 3 after 3 after 3.

That's not what I said at all, but when all you have is a hammer...

I prefer today's basketball because of the higher pace, more skilled players, less ISOs and generally smarter coaching. And for the life of me I don't understand what makes 3s worse to watch than long 2s (this is the biggest change in shot distribution). What makes a drive and kick for a corner 3 less fun to you than a drive and kick for a baseline 18 footer, for example, which was a pretty common play in earlier years in the league?

The variance. The game today has become a game of wild swings, where a team gets a big lead from 3 and the losing team has to shoot 3s to catch up. It's why blowouts are going up. There's too much variance in the scoring due to the 3 point shot, and it's getting much worse when teams are shooting 35 of them a game.

[Frank Lee]

I don’t understand what Fry is so tweaked about… Maybe it’s because nobody gets compared to him? Butthurt over nothing really. In 20 years somebody might say a player reminds them of LeBron or he’s like Stef. I think Channing has some deeper issues here.


I wonder what Perk’s response was.

Why does it have to be personal? It seems like Channing is just tired of boomers and their incessant lies.

What are the lies? This is a drummed up beef

[bledredwine]

That's not what I said at all, but when all you have is a hammer...

I prefer today's basketball because of the higher pace, more skilled players, less ISOs and generally smarter coaching. And for the life of me I don't understand what makes 3s worse to watch than long 2s (this is the biggest change in shot distribution). What makes a drive and kick for a corner 3 less fun to you than a drive and kick for a baseline 18 footer, for example, which was a pretty common play in earlier years in the league?

What makes it worse?

Because now it's 3's or completely inside the paint shots.

Before, you had everything as part of the game, elbows, post etc. Just see the shot chart thread and you'll see.

It's hard to argue against that variety. And defense is a whole different conversation.

How many poster dunks do you see these days on top of bigs?
Bigs simply can't contest dunks anymore.

You can like the modern game more. That's fine, but it definitely has less variety and there's a heavy amount of spammed threes.
That is undeniable.

The bolded I don't get, is that a thing? If so, why? Seems like a decent sample from just the first few months of the season:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygURT29zdGVyIGR1YmtzIDIwMjQ%3D

Definitely less use of the middle game by anyone who isn't a star, and of course can't really blame teams when it is the more efficient way to play based on having a 3PT shot. That fact that it took time to "stick" in the league is whatever, that's just how change happens (usually slowly), but once it happens, you can't unknow what you know.

Like I've mentioned before and many people clearly aren't aware of, especially when they cite Euroleague and FIBA as representing the old NBA, Euroleague (and college) with their smaller courts, shorter 3PT (even shorter before) and zones were utilizing the 3PT shot far more than the NBA. NBA though had the same thing when the line came in, in 96-97, we had 9 teams at 18+ 3PA , when there were zero in 93-94, and we had a guard/wing led team go up all the way to 25 a game. We had the Rockets take 21 a game and go up to 23 a game in the playoffs. A modern coach with would have had a team like the Rockets at 30+ 3PA in those years.



I don't know what the "solution" is if people want more mid-range usage, it's just not an effective enough shot compared to the 3PT for all but the best players, and it doesn't create as much space for the post, Mid-Post, and inside attack if guys are in the mid-range area, so of course teams are going to try to maximize success.

This is from Euroleague, but we see the obvious issue:


Point per shot decreases as you move away from the basket, then drastically increases as you get to the 3PT. Even the long three is at 0.96 PPS vs 0.74 in the mid-range area. There's no way for us to get teams to unknow this. I mean to be fair, this isn't "new". Think of all the shots that used to be taken in the 60's as regular shots (all the sweeping hooks, etc). They didn't need data, but coaches realized that floaters and pull up jumpshots were far more effective shots.

If you watched basketball in the 60's you might say there are fewer variety of shots being taken in the 80's, and you would be correct, more guys were using more "tried and true" shots, and less wild stuff was being attempted, but you can't expect them to unknow what they realized about the relative effectiveness of the different shot types. Some of them were pretty fun though and to be fair, I pull out some of that in pick up basketball for fun, and they are make able if you work on them, just not the most reliable options.

We'll see how things continue to progress...

Those graphs don’t really add much to your point and with less ease of movement towards the basket comes less difficulty guarding kick out open threes, which we see constantly.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference.

[og15]

What makes it worse?

Because now it's 3's or completely inside the paint shots.

Before, you had everything as part of the game, elbows, post etc. Just see the shot chart thread and you'll see.

It's hard to argue against that variety. And defense is a whole different conversation.

How many poster dunks do you see these days on top of bigs?
Bigs simply can't contest dunks anymore.

You can like the modern game more. That's fine, but it definitely has less variety and there's a heavy amount of spammed threes.
That is undeniable.

The bolded I don't get, is that a thing? If so, why? Seems like a decent sample from just the first few months of the season:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygURT29zdGVyIGR1YmtzIDIwMjQ%3D

Definitely less use of the middle game by anyone who isn't a star, and of course can't really blame teams when it is the more efficient way to play based on having a 3PT shot. That fact that it took time to "stick" in the league is whatever, that's just how change happens (usually slowly), but once it happens, you can't unknow what you know.

Like I've mentioned before and many people clearly aren't aware of, especially when they cite Euroleague and FIBA as representing the old NBA, Euroleague (and college) with their smaller courts, shorter 3PT (even shorter before) and zones were utilizing the 3PT shot far more than the NBA. NBA though had the same thing when the line came in, in 96-97, we had 9 teams at 18+ 3PA , when there were zero in 93-94, and we had a guard/wing led team go up all the way to 25 a game. We had the Rockets take 21 a game and go up to 23 a game in the playoffs. A modern coach with would have had a team like the Rockets at 30+ 3PA in those years.



I don't know what the "solution" is if people want more mid-range usage, it's just not an effective enough shot compared to the 3PT for all but the best players, and it doesn't create as much space for the post, Mid-Post, and inside attack if guys are in the mid-range area, so of course teams are going to try to maximize success.

This is from Euroleague, but we see the obvious issue:


Point per shot decreases as you move away from the basket, then drastically increases as you get to the 3PT. Even the long three is at 0.96 PPS vs 0.74 in the mid-range area. There's no way for us to get teams to unknow this. I mean to be fair, this isn't "new". Think of all the shots that used to be taken in the 60's as regular shots (all the sweeping hooks, etc). They didn't need data, but coaches realized that floaters and pull up jumpshots were far more effective shots.

If you watched basketball in the 60's you might say there are fewer variety of shots being taken in the 80's, and you would be correct, more guys were using more "tried and true" shots, and less wild stuff was being attempted, but you can't expect them to unknow what they realized about the relative effectiveness of the different shot types. Some of them were pretty fun though and to be fair, I pull out some of that in pick up basketball for fun, and they are make able if you work on them, just not the most reliable options.

We'll see how things continue to progress...

Those graphs don’t really add much to your point and with less ease of movement towards the basket comes less difficulty guarding kick out open threes, which we see constantly.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference.

The graphs are pretty self explanatory of what I was saying, should be pretty useful to us if we've followed the NBA and have some understanding of FIBA.

There are multiple ways to generate open shots. Coaches use the best way they have based on their team, but the NBA has always been able to generate open catch and shoot shots, regardless of what rules were present. Peak mid-90's we had teams in the low to mid 20's on 3PA when the line was shorter. When it wasn't, they generated those open shots where their players were comfortable, long mid. If they could shoot it and it was in the game plan, they would do it, and almost everyone in a perimeter role now can shoot the 3PT, and it's in the game plan.

Whether we change the primary way they generate those 3's, isolation, high pick and roll, side pick and roll, mid-post, screen actions, DHO, low post, and different teams currently have different methods, those are still going to be the shots coaches want to generate for catch and shoot.

Graph #1:

NBA 2008: 37% mid-range attempts

Euroleague 2008: 20% mid-range attempts

FIBA moves line back from 19.7 feet to 22.1 3/4 feet

Euroleague after longer line: 26% mid-range

Still lower than NBA, but went up due to fewer players being as comfortable with longer 3PT

Players adjust to new line, Euroleague mid-range goes down even lower than 2008 and same as NBA who also got on the 3PT wave FIBA was already on

Inaccurate FIBA rules effect claims:

FIBA rules makes it harder for teams to shoot three's

Reality: Euroleague did it long before NBA jumped on, and currently is at the same level as NBA

Zone won't make us have fewer jumpers, it could make us have more mid-range jumpers while still shooting the same amount of three's though. If the goal is simply more mid-range, it will give a little more, but we'll get even more jumpshots. Yay!

Graph #2:

Point per shot at rim: great
Point per shot 1.5 meters to inside 3PT: around 0.74
Point per shot 3PT: 0.96 - 1.24

Just too big of a difference for modern coaches to not make their offenses aim to generate primarily three's as their catch and shoot.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

The NBA has always made changes to make offense easier. Illegal defense, all the hand checking revision since 1976, shorter 3PT line in the 90's, etc, etc

Why did NBA add illegal defense?

To make offense easier

To open up space for inside scoring

There was no 3PT line then, the 3PT line came, but it wasn't utilized enough.

When it started being utilized more, and also with the NBA looking at FIBA, they said, okay, let's allow zone (even thought about trapezoid lane IIRC), but they said, we don't want to be FIBA, we want our game to still be it's onwn thing and we want to still be more man to man

3 in the key: Why did the NBA change from illegal defense to zone with 3 seconds?

1) As everything in sports, exploitation on both ends. Caused for very stagnant basketball with illegal defense.

2) Less confusing, illegal defense became so convoluted, hard to officiate, player and coaches didn't know what was allowed or wasn't, even refs were guessing a lot and therefore it wasn't accomplishing its goal.

3) NBA wanted more pace (more ppg like the early 90's and 80's and earlier), and less individual basketball. They added zone to make it harder for individual players score, with the thought that it would force teams to do less isolation and do more transition and team scoring (NBA wasn't looking at Ortg, they just wanted the ppg to be higher which does up if you play faster). They thought, it we take away the stars ability to just isolate and score against a forced stagnant defense with forced spacing, this would hopefully force more shooting on the court, more team basketball and faster play since you can't rely on iso.

Theoretically if you're not halting your offense to set up a wing, mid-post or post isolations, you might then play more free flowing team basketball. They thought it would make all teams play like Sacramento, Dallas, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc.

The main scorers would lose some individual scoring, but in a good system and team set up, gain assists passing to their weakside shooters.

4) Didn't work as well as they thought, teams still for the most part continued the more stagnant offenses, the perimeter physicality again was getting out of hand, but now strong defenses had zone too, so they can wall off guys in the post (sorry Barkley), etc, and if a team didn't have spacing, they couldn't manipulate illegal defense to create it.

5) So they again made the 04-05 adjustments, which got Ortg back to just over pre-lockout season numbers (106.1 to 105), but all of it including 8 second, zone, etc still didn't do much for pace for 10+ years, because the NBA is slow to change.

Should 3 in the key go?
Possibly since players are so good at shooting now, but NBA still wants to differentiate itself from FIBA in some way, but FIBA (and college) also shows them that it doesn't reduce three's.



Hand checking

NBA has almost always had hand checking rules

How strictly it's enforced has waned and wandered and still does, but there's no version of the NBA where you can hand check however you want

They can make some tweaks to the level of physicality they allow but it's not going to do much to 3PT attempts

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference

Depends on what you want to help and what you are looking to make a difference in.

No international players has ever said that it's harder to take a lot of three's in Europe, and that's because it's not.

Here's what the stars have said:

It's easier to score more points because...

There are more minutes to score

The court is bigger so there's more space

There is 3 in the key so bigs can't camp

The game is not as tactics and team based because so many good individuals, stars get more to eat

Guys coming from college basketball will say many of the same things, and add:

You have better shooters so that also maximizes that space you have

NBA won't make it's court smaller, won't reduce the length of the 3PT line, won't reduce its minutes, and compared to college, won't make it's shooters worse, so a good amount of the reasons it is easier to score won't go away. They can tweak the 3 in the key and the perimeter physicality, but again, it the specific goal is 3PA, people really don't get it, if they think those will change anything.

Currently Euroleague has full zone, more physicality allowed on the perimeter, stricter illegal screen calling, again, everything we can come up with, but they only take 18-19% of shots from mid-range, just like the NBA, and they have the same 3PT attempt rate as the NBA.

Further Line?
The only thing historically that has affected 3PT attempts has been a further 3PT line. We saw it in the NBA, shorter and it almost doubled in 3 seasons, with the top teams taking almost 10 more a game than the team with the most before. Then shorter and it reverted back, and in FIBA, longer and fewer 3PT attempts, but then players got better at the longer one and it just slowly went back.

There's a limit point for where most players can't be as good at the 3PT shot. The NBA could say, okay, we want the line to be at the place where only the elite of the elite are very good at it.

Problem is that while you "fix" that "problem", you create another one where defenders are now having to guard the guys who CAN shoot effectively from that far so far out, so you have even MORE space, and you're making the defense work even harder and cover more ground per possession (more injuries). A big coming to help out on a pick and roll is stretching out another 2-3 feet away from the basket.

So... we'll see...

[mysticOscar]

Channing is just putting his head under the sand.

NBA has a problem atm which is getting worse. And people can deny there's a problem until it's too late.

Players sitting out 20-30 games of the season,

Team loyalty by players is at an all time low from the decades I've watched the league.

And the brand of play style regardless of the sophistication is one dimensional from the general viewers perspective.

So no, it's not just not nostalgia....there's real issues that need to be solved

[bledredwine]

The bolded I don't get, is that a thing? If so, why? Seems like a decent sample from just the first few months of the season:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygURT29zdGVyIGR1YmtzIDIwMjQ%3D

Definitely less use of the middle game by anyone who isn't a star, and of course can't really blame teams when it is the more efficient way to play based on having a 3PT shot. That fact that it took time to "stick" in the league is whatever, that's just how change happens (usually slowly), but once it happens, you can't unknow what you know.

Like I've mentioned before and many people clearly aren't aware of, especially when they cite Euroleague and FIBA as representing the old NBA, Euroleague (and college) with their smaller courts, shorter 3PT (even shorter before) and zones were utilizing the 3PT shot far more than the NBA. NBA though had the same thing when the line came in, in 96-97, we had 9 teams at 18+ 3PA , when there were zero in 93-94, and we had a guard/wing led team go up all the way to 25 a game. We had the Rockets take 21 a game and go up to 23 a game in the playoffs. A modern coach with would have had a team like the Rockets at 30+ 3PA in those years.



I don't know what the "solution" is if people want more mid-range usage, it's just not an effective enough shot compared to the 3PT for all but the best players, and it doesn't create as much space for the post, Mid-Post, and inside attack if guys are in the mid-range area, so of course teams are going to try to maximize success.

This is from Euroleague, but we see the obvious issue:


Point per shot decreases as you move away from the basket, then drastically increases as you get to the 3PT. Even the long three is at 0.96 PPS vs 0.74 in the mid-range area. There's no way for us to get teams to unknow this. I mean to be fair, this isn't "new". Think of all the shots that used to be taken in the 60's as regular shots (all the sweeping hooks, etc). They didn't need data, but coaches realized that floaters and pull up jumpshots were far more effective shots.

If you watched basketball in the 60's you might say there are fewer variety of shots being taken in the 80's, and you would be correct, more guys were using more "tried and true" shots, and less wild stuff was being attempted, but you can't expect them to unknow what they realized about the relative effectiveness of the different shot types. Some of them were pretty fun though and to be fair, I pull out some of that in pick up basketball for fun, and they are make able if you work on them, just not the most reliable options.

We'll see how things continue to progress...

Those graphs don’t really add much to your point and with less ease of movement towards the basket comes less difficulty guarding kick out open threes, which we see constantly.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference.

The graphs are pretty self explanatory of what I was saying, should be pretty useful to us if we've followed the NBA and have some understanding of FIBA.

There are multiple ways to generate open shots. Coaches use the best way they have based on their team, but the NBA has always been able to generate open catch and shoot shots, regardless of what rules were present. Peak mid-90's we had teams in the low to mid 20's on 3PA when the line was shorter. When it wasn't, they generated those open shots where their players were comfortable, long mid. If they could shoot it and it was in the game plan, they would do it, and almost everyone in a perimeter role now can shoot the 3PT, and it's in the game plan.

Whether we change the primary way they generate those 3's, isolation, high pick and roll, side pick and roll, mid-post, screen actions, DHO, low post, and different teams currently have different methods, those are still going to be the shots coaches want to generate for catch and shoot.

Graph #1:

NBA 2008: 37% mid-range attempts

Euroleague 2008: 20% mid-range attempts

FIBA moves line back from 19.7 feet to 22.1 3/4 feet

Euroleague after longer line: 26% mid-range

Still lower than NBA, but went up due to fewer players being as comfortable with longer 3PT

Players adjust to new line, Euroleague mid-range goes down even lower than 2008 and same as NBA who also got on the 3PT wave FIBA was already on

Inaccurate FIBA rules effect claims:

FIBA rules makes it harder for teams to shoot three's

Reality: Euroleague did it long before NBA jumped on, and currently is at the same level as NBA

Zone won't make us have fewer jumpers, it could make us have more mid-range jumpers while still shooting the same amount of three's though. If the goal is simply more mid-range, it will give a little more, but we'll get even more jumpshots. Yay!

Graph #2:

Point per shot at rim: great
Point per shot 1.5 meters to inside 3PT: around 0.74
Point per shot 3PT: 0.96 - 1.24

Just too big of a difference for modern coaches to not make their offenses aim to generate primarily three's as their catch and shoot.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

The NBA has always made changes to make offense easier. Illegal defense, all the hand checking revision since 1976, shorter 3PT line in the 90's, etc, etc

Why did NBA add illegal defense?

To make offense easier

To open up space for inside scoring

There was no 3PT line then, the 3PT line came, but it wasn't utilized enough.

When it started being utilized more, and also with the NBA looking at FIBA, they said, okay, let's allow zone (even thought about trapezoid lane IIRC), but they said, we don't want to be FIBA, we want our game to still be it's onwn thing and we want to still be more man to man

3 in the key: Why did the NBA change from illegal defense to zone with 3 seconds?

1) As everything in sports, exploitation on both ends. Caused for very stagnant basketball with illegal defense.

2) Less confusing, illegal defense became so convoluted, hard to officiate, player and coaches didn't know what was allowed or wasn't, even refs were guessing a lot and therefore it wasn't accomplishing its goal.

3) NBA wanted more pace (more ppg like the early 90's and 80's and earlier), and less individual basketball. They added zone to make it harder for individual players score, with the thought that it would force teams to do less isolation and do more transition and team scoring (NBA wasn't looking at Ortg, they just wanted the ppg to be higher which does up if you play faster). They thought, it we take away the stars ability to just isolate and score against a forced stagnant defense with forced spacing, this would hopefully force more shooting on the court, more team basketball and faster play since you can't rely on iso.

Theoretically if you're not halting your offense to set up a wing, mid-post or post isolations, you might then play more free flowing team basketball. They thought it would make all teams play like Sacramento, Dallas, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc.

The main scorers would lose some individual scoring, but in a good system and team set up, gain assists passing to their weakside shooters.

4) Didn't work as well as they thought, teams still for the most part continued the more stagnant offenses, the perimeter physicality again was getting out of hand, but now strong defenses had zone too, so they can wall off guys in the post (sorry Barkley), etc, and if a team didn't have spacing, they couldn't manipulate illegal defense to create it.

5) So they again made the 04-05 adjustments, which got Ortg back to just over pre-lockout season numbers (106.1 to 105), but all of it including 8 second, zone, etc still didn't do much for pace for 10+ years, because the NBA is slow to change.

Should 3 in the key go?
Possibly since players are so good at shooting now, but NBA still wants to differentiate itself from FIBA in some way, but FIBA (and college) also shows them that it doesn't reduce three's.



Hand checking

NBA has almost always had hand checking rules

How strictly it's enforced has waned and wandered and still does, but there's no version of the NBA where you can hand check however you want

They can make some tweaks to the level of physicality they allow but it's not going to do much to 3PT attempts

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference

Depends on what you want to help and what you are looking to make a difference in.

No international players has ever said that it's harder to take a lot of three's in Europe, and that's because it's not.

Here's what the stars have said:

It's easier to score more points because...

There are more minutes to score

The court is bigger so there's more space

There is 3 in the key so bigs can't camp

The game is not as tactics and team based because so many good individuals, stars get more to eat

Guys coming from college basketball will say many of the same things, and add:

You have better shooters so that also maximizes that space you have

NBA won't make it's court smaller, won't reduce the length of the 3PT line, won't reduce its minutes, and compared to college, won't make it's shooters worse, so a good amount of the reasons it is easier to score won't go away. They can tweak the 3 in the key and the perimeter physicality, but again, it the specific goal is 3PA, people really don't get it, if they think those will change anything.

Currently Euroleague has full zone, more physicality allowed on the perimeter, stricter illegal screen calling, again, everything we can come up with, but they only take 18-19% of shots from mid-range, just like the NBA, and they have the same 3PT attempt rate as the NBA.

Further Line?
The only thing historically that has affected 3PT attempts has been a further 3PT line. We saw it in the NBA, shorter and it almost doubled in 3 seasons, with the top teams taking almost 10 more a game than the team with the most before. Then shorter and it reverted back, and in FIBA, longer and fewer 3PT attempts, but then players got better at the longer one and it just slowly went back.

There's a limit point for where most players can't be as good at the 3PT shot. The NBA could say, okay, we want the line to be at the place where only the elite of the elite are very good at it.

Problem is that while you "fix" that "problem", you create another one where defenders are now having to guard the guys who CAN shoot effectively from that far so far out, so you have even MORE space, and you're making the defense work even harder and cover more ground per possession (more injuries). A big coming to help out on a pick and roll is stretching out another 2-3 feet away from the basket.

So... we'll see...

You're definitely right that the NBA has been making is easier to score for many decades (far before the 80s). There's a great video on that if you're interested.

From what I gather, we're basically in agreement. I will disagree on one thing though - the Euroleagues descending in midrange attempts is not that significant when you consider how much closer the three point line is... it's much more like a midrange shot, so of course it would make sense to take more threes in that scenario. I don't see how allowing handchecking (legit handchecking with resistance) and eliminating the three second violation would at the least limit easy drives to the rim from the three, and thus easy dishes outwards, maybe encouraging some more midrange in the process in times of trouble.

Also consider that if the three second violation is lifted and handchecking allowed, there will be more priority for tenacious and better defenders, as there used to be- being at least a solid defender used to be more of a requirement, for example. Draft patterns would change just as they did to acclimate to the rules and trajectory of the game.

There's no reason to have the 3 second violation nor the handchecking rules other than to green light scoring- that much, I do believe we're in agreement about and I do believe we both agree should be obvious as can be. Does it make the game more interesting? I suppose, if you like more scoring.

[Teen Girl Squad]

Channing is just putting his head under the sand.

NBA has a problem atm which is getting worse. And people can deny there's a problem until it's too late.

Players sitting out 20-30 games of the season,

Team loyalty by players is at an all time low from the decades I've watched the league.

And the brand of play style regardless of the sophistication is one dimensional from the general viewers perspective.

So no, it's not just not nostalgia....there's real issues that need to be solved

Few people would debate these points. What people will debate is that the past was devoid of problems and wholly and unambiguously 'better,' while offering little tangible evidence outside of tropes, cliches and talking points like "handchecking." We see an epidemic of these across society of people wanting to cosplay the past as magic curealls rather than the hardwork of tackling new problems with new solutions.

[MavsDirk41]

What exactly is the hypocrisy here?

So its cool to trash 80s/90s nba but if past players trash the modern nba its “old man yelling at clouds” or whatever. Barkley and Shaq didnt play in the modern nba. And Frye along with Gilbert Arenas and JJ Redick didnt play in the 80s and 90s.

The difference is Frye isn't doing it unprompted. He's responding directly to the moronic takes out there.

No hypocrisy, sorry.

Sorry disagree

[therealbig3]

The NFL media and older generation of players are always giving the current generation their flowers and props, even though it’s obviously a different game now than it was even 10 years ago.

For some reason, the NBA’s previous generations are dedicated to constantly denigrating and talking down to the current era and its players. Frye has a point.

[Duke4life831]

I think the entire discourse around the NBA has become such trash. Whether it’s on here, Twitter, or national media. Its all the same, just feels like I’m reading NBA Reddit from 10 years ago.

It’s really just become the lowest level of discourse. Someone criticizes the new era of basketball and favors the past. You’re just an old boomer yelling at the clouds.

Someone criticizes the older style in favor of today’s game. You’re a young kid that doesn’t know what you’re talking about and you don’t like defense.

The sad thing is, this level of idiotic discourse has now taken over basically all of NBA discourse. This is how national media talks now. This is what former players say to new players and vice versa.

Any nuance or level headed discourse has been tossed out the window. To me, I’m not a fan of the NBA anymore. But it’s not even enjoyable to talk basketball in general anymore.

[og15]

Spoiler:

Those graphs don’t really add much to your point and with less ease of movement towards the basket comes less difficulty guarding kick out open threes, which we see constantly.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference.

The graphs are pretty self explanatory of what I was saying, should be pretty useful to us if we've followed the NBA and have some understanding of FIBA.

There are multiple ways to generate open shots. Coaches use the best way they have based on their team, but the NBA has always been able to generate open catch and shoot shots, regardless of what rules were present. Peak mid-90's we had teams in the low to mid 20's on 3PA when the line was shorter. When it wasn't, they generated those open shots where their players were comfortable, long mid. If they could shoot it and it was in the game plan, they would do it, and almost everyone in a perimeter role now can shoot the 3PT, and it's in the game plan.

Whether we change the primary way they generate those 3's, isolation, high pick and roll, side pick and roll, mid-post, screen actions, DHO, low post, and different teams currently have different methods, those are still going to be the shots coaches want to generate for catch and shoot.

Graph #1:

NBA 2008: 37% mid-range attempts

Euroleague 2008: 20% mid-range attempts

FIBA moves line back from 19.7 feet to 22.1 3/4 feet

Euroleague after longer line: 26% mid-range

Still lower than NBA, but went up due to fewer players being as comfortable with longer 3PT

Players adjust to new line, Euroleague mid-range goes down even lower than 2008 and same as NBA who also got on the 3PT wave FIBA was already on

Inaccurate FIBA rules effect claims:

FIBA rules makes it harder for teams to shoot three's

Reality: Euroleague did it long before NBA jumped on, and currently is at the same level as NBA

Zone won't make us have fewer jumpers, it could make us have more mid-range jumpers while still shooting the same amount of three's though. If the goal is simply more mid-range, it will give a little more, but we'll get even more jumpshots. Yay!

Graph #2:

Point per shot at rim: great
Point per shot 1.5 meters to inside 3PT: around 0.74
Point per shot 3PT: 0.96 - 1.24

Just too big of a difference for modern coaches to not make their offenses aim to generate primarily three's as their catch and shoot.

There’s no need for the three sec and handchecking rules, nor the easily called whistles, allowing carries etc other than to promote more offensive ease.

The NBA has always made changes to make offense easier. Illegal defense, all the hand checking revision since 1976, shorter 3PT line in the 90's, etc, etc

Why did NBA add illegal defense?

To make offense easier

To open up space for inside scoring

There was no 3PT line then, the 3PT line came, but it wasn't utilized enough.

When it started being utilized more, and also with the NBA looking at FIBA, they said, okay, let's allow zone (even thought about trapezoid lane IIRC), but they said, we don't want to be FIBA, we want our game to still be it's onwn thing and we want to still be more man to man

3 in the key: Why did the NBA change from illegal defense to zone with 3 seconds?

1) As everything in sports, exploitation on both ends. Caused for very stagnant basketball with illegal defense.

2) Less confusing, illegal defense became so convoluted, hard to officiate, player and coaches didn't know what was allowed or wasn't, even refs were guessing a lot and therefore it wasn't accomplishing its goal.

3) NBA wanted more pace (more ppg like the early 90's and 80's and earlier), and less individual basketball. They added zone to make it harder for individual players score, with the thought that it would force teams to do less isolation and do more transition and team scoring (NBA wasn't looking at Ortg, they just wanted the ppg to be higher which does up if you play faster). They thought, it we take away the stars ability to just isolate and score against a forced stagnant defense with forced spacing, this would hopefully force more shooting on the court, more team basketball and faster play since you can't rely on iso.

Theoretically if you're not halting your offense to set up a wing, mid-post or post isolations, you might then play more free flowing team basketball. They thought it would make all teams play like Sacramento, Dallas, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc.

The main scorers would lose some individual scoring, but in a good system and team set up, gain assists passing to their weakside shooters.

4) Didn't work as well as they thought, teams still for the most part continued the more stagnant offenses, the perimeter physicality again was getting out of hand, but now strong defenses had zone too, so they can wall off guys in the post (sorry Barkley), etc, and if a team didn't have spacing, they couldn't manipulate illegal defense to create it.

5) So they again made the 04-05 adjustments, which got Ortg back to just over pre-lockout season numbers (106.1 to 105), but all of it including 8 second, zone, etc still didn't do much for pace for 10+ years, because the NBA is slow to change.

Should 3 in the key go?
Possibly since players are so good at shooting now, but NBA still wants to differentiate itself from FIBA in some way, but FIBA (and college) also shows them that it doesn't reduce three's.



Hand checking

NBA has almost always had hand checking rules

How strictly it's enforced has waned and wandered and still does, but there's no version of the NBA where you can hand check however you want

They can make some tweaks to the level of physicality they allow but it's not going to do much to 3PT attempts

Of course changing that would help. And according to the international players and NBA cross era players, it absolutely makes a difference

Depends on what you want to help and what you are looking to make a difference in.

No international players has ever said that it's harder to take a lot of three's in Europe, and that's because it's not.

Here's what the stars have said:

It's easier to score more points because...

There are more minutes to score

The court is bigger so there's more space

There is 3 in the key so bigs can't camp

The game is not as tactics and team based because so many good individuals, stars get more to eat

Guys coming from college basketball will say many of the same things, and add:

You have better shooters so that also maximizes that space you have

NBA won't make it's court smaller, won't reduce the length of the 3PT line, won't reduce its minutes, and compared to college, won't make it's shooters worse, so a good amount of the reasons it is easier to score won't go away. They can tweak the 3 in the key and the perimeter physicality, but again, it the specific goal is 3PA, people really don't get it, if they think those will change anything.

Currently Euroleague has full zone, more physicality allowed on the perimeter, stricter illegal screen calling, again, everything we can come up with, but they only take 18-19% of shots from mid-range, just like the NBA, and they have the same 3PT attempt rate as the NBA.

Further Line?
The only thing historically that has affected 3PT attempts has been a further 3PT line. We saw it in the NBA, shorter and it almost doubled in 3 seasons, with the top teams taking almost 10 more a game than the team with the most before. Then shorter and it reverted back, and in FIBA, longer and fewer 3PT attempts, but then players got better at the longer one and it just slowly went back.

There's a limit point for where most players can't be as good at the 3PT shot. The NBA could say, okay, we want the line to be at the place where only the elite of the elite are very good at it.

Problem is that while you "fix" that "problem", you create another one where defenders are now having to guard the guys who CAN shoot effectively from that far so far out, so you have even MORE space, and you're making the defense work even harder and cover more ground per possession (more injuries). A big coming to help out on a pick and roll is stretching out another 2-3 feet away from the basket.

So... we'll see...

You're definitely right that the NBA has been making is easier to score for many decades (far before the 80s). There's a great video on that if you're interested.

From what I gather, we're basically in agreement. I will disagree on one thing though - the Euroleagues descending in midrange attempts is not that significant when you consider how much closer the three point line is... it's much more like a midrange shot, so of course it would make sense to take more threes in that scenario. I don't see how allowing handchecking (legit handchecking with resistance) and eliminating the three second violation would at the least limit easy drives to the rim from the three, and thus easy dishes outwards, maybe encouraging some more midrange in the process in times of trouble.

Also consider that if the three second violation is lifted and handchecking allowed, there will be more priority for tenacious and better defenders, as there used to be- being at least a solid defender used to be more of a requirement, for example. Draft patterns would change just as they did to acclimate to the rules and trajectory of the game.

There's no reason to have the 3 second violation nor the handchecking rules other than to green light scoring- that much, I do believe we're in agreement about and I do believe we both agree should be obvious as can be. Does it make the game more interesting? I suppose, if you like more scoring.

I will give the NBA the leeway in that any big rule changes don't always play out how you want them to, and then sometimes if you give strategies and team building time to catch up, they might level things out.

If you make a change too drastically, the teams will still adjust to catch up, and then you might have to make a change to the change.

Of course basketball rules are a constant balancing act of trying to allow for freedom and offense but also allowing the defense to be effective enough.

[G35]

Guys now are incredible, but they don’t care as much as MJ & Kobe did. Kobe was out there giving 110% effort in damn All Star games. MJ took every slight that was said about him personally, and avenged every single one of them.

This 1000%.

Players are talented now, there are talented teams. But players as a whole do not care as much, teams do not care as much.

All throughout history, when we look back, we look at battles between rival countries:

- Greeks vs Phoenicians
- Greeks vs Persians
- Romans vs Carthaginians
- China vs Japan
- India vs Pakistan
- United States vs USSR
- Germany vs France
- UK vs France

There was bad blood, there was domination on one side vs the other, they truly did not like each other and that is what made their era's interesting. No one cares about golden ages when everyone got along and sang kumbaya.

The best eras in any sport was when there were rivalries:
- Celtics vs Lakers (60's)
- Celtics vs Wilt (Sixers and Warriors)
- 70's had no rivalries
- Lakers vs Celtics (80's)
- Sixers vs Celtics (80's this was the real rivalry if you know your history)
- Bulls vs Pistons (80's)
- Lakers vs Kings (2000's)
- Lakers vs Spurs (90's and 2000's)
- Warriors vs Cavaliers (10's)

Players attitudes are the results of the modern culture. Young fans want all of their favorite players to get along, make music together, get on each others podcasts and that does not work when creating rivalries. It is great for merchandising or collaboration, but it is terrible for competition and at the end of the day great sport is about the competitiveness of the players and teams.....

[The High Cyde]

Dude it’s just basketball, not going to war for your country or some ****

[G35]

Dude it’s just basketball, not going to war for your country or some ****

That's why people don't care about watching the NBA as much...its just basketball......

[The High Cyde]

Dude it’s just basketball, not going to war for your country or some ****

That's why people don't care about watching the NBA as much...its just basketball......

Yes, a sport where a ball is thrown in a hoop for points that they are getting paid tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to do so. It’s not that serious boss. Take off the tinted glasses lmao players were buddy buddy back then too, and you know this, yet you continue to **** on players of today.