Was Watching Game 7 of the 2001 ECF (Sixers vs Bucks)

[Bad-Thoma]

Recently. Lots of interesting things in the game, but notably Ray Allen got injured late with a knee sprain and had to leave the game and hit the locker room for a while. Of course he came back in the game because its game 7. And when he did, he was limping so bad he could barely make it upcourt.

Milwaukee had Ray guarding Eric Snow, and everyone else available on Iverson. Naturally, I was expecting Philly take advantage of Ray's injury and have AI get him on switches or crossmatching for an easy iso or a forced double. Or for Snow to go at him.

Never happened. They didn't make the slightest attempt to bring Ray in on the action. Just let him exist on the other side of the court with a busted knee and Eric Snow 6 feet away. Didn't have Snow go at him. Didn't have Snow bring him into Iverson's screen action. Didn't try to force a switch. Didn't seek him in transition. Nothing. Meanwhile, Iverson just went at whatever defender George Karl assigned to him while Ray chilled on the weak side.

As surprising as this was, it did remind me that switch/bum hunting didn't really take off until the Warriors/Cavs finals. And that offensive strategy and coaching have gotten a lot better over the past 20 years. While we can blame them for not innovating earlier, it just wasn't the paradigm at the time.

Which makes me wonder if and how the NBA historic landscape would be different if this strategy had existed earlier.

But thats the question. Would NBA history be different if teams had been relentlessly hunting weak links on defense they way they do now, but in the 80s? The 90s? 00s?

Keeping to a short response I don't think it would have been as effective as the floor spacing just didn't exist to the degree it does now and teams were more likely to collapse to the paint to stop penetration. It wasn't unheard of to seek out mismatches but it wasn't nearly as important as teams didn't have the personnel to play 4 or 5 out (or even 3 out most of the time). From what I remember (my memory is far from perfect), most of the mismatch hunting I would see back then happened in the post vs on the perimeter. Then teams would have to bring another defender to double and that would start the ball movement and get the defense in rotation.

[tsherkin]

From what I remember (my memory is far from perfect), most of the mismatch hunting I would see back then happened in the post vs on the perimeter. Then teams would have to bring another defender to double and that would start the ball movement and get the defense in rotation.

In the 90s, San Antonio would use a lot of screens to get Robinson matched up on SFs and smaller PFs, because it was easier for him to attack them facing up from the elbow and the baseline. That's the most notable example I can think of. And of course, it wasn't quite the same, but the volume of PnR the Jazz ran at the time also attacked guys who weren't necessarily all that great moving laterally against a smaller guard with a shooting threat. And the triangle Chicago ran moved guys around pretty effectively, got Jordan on the weakside after ball reversal quite regularly.

[SelfishPlayer]

And even then, there are plenty of guys who isolate without screens in today's game, so it's not even a particularly accurate assessment of the game.

Are you talking about guys in this era isolating mismatches in the center of the floor and still not going to the basket like the following:

Watch on YouTube

Iverson took qualified defenders all the way to the hoop:

Watch on YouTube

Iverson took all world defender Scottie Pippen to the basket:

Watch on YouTube

In today's game Iverson iwould get to the basket and not be faced with 7'00" defenders nearly as frequently, in fact these shorter 5 men also have a defensive three second call and charge circle hindering their efforts.

[tsherkin]

And even then, there are plenty of guys who isolate without screens in today's game, so it's not even a particularly accurate assessment of the game.

Are you talking about guys in this era isolating mismatches in the center of the floor and still not going to the basket like the following:

Watch on YouTube

What does this have to do with literally anything? That's a shot popped off in the trailing seconds of the game where they were down by 2 and needed the 3 to win the game. That's how that clip starts.

Yes, Iverson could get to the basket. Yes, Luka habitually doesn't go to the basket, and pulls up a lot more. He also doesn't have elite speed, so he's a terrible starting point for discourse on the subject.

That doesn't really make your argument effectively.

[SelfishPlayer]

And even then, there are plenty of guys who isolate without screens in today's game, so it's not even a particularly accurate assessment of the game.

Are you talking about guys in this era isolating mismatches in the center of the floor and still not going to the basket like the following:

Watch on YouTube

What does this have to do with literally anything? That's a shot popped off in the trailing seconds of the game where they were down by 2 and needed the 3 to win the game. That's how that clip starts.

Yes, Iverson could get to the basket. Yes, Luka habitually doesn't go to the basket, and pulls up a lot more. He also doesn't have elite speed, so he's a terrible starting point for discourse on the subject.

That doesn't really make your argument effectively.

The players today that are lauded as top elite scorers really are such up until the point the opposition sends a trap their way. Luka has gone two entire consecutive postseasons without producing a single 40 point game. It's easy to trap someone that is switch hunting. It's difficult to trap someone that thrives off isolation on any and all defenders, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, bring them on it doesnt matter.

[tsherkin]

The players today that are lauded as top elite scorers really are such up until the point the opposition sends a trap their way. Luka has gone two entire consecutive postseasons without producing a single 40 point game. It's easy to trap someone that is switch hunting. It's difficult to trap someone that thrives off isolation on any and all defenders, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, bring them on it doesnt matter.

One clip of Luka taking a 3 to win the game instead of tying it doesn't show anything. Yes, there are a number of players who shoot more threes than perhaps they ought to in today's game, that's true, but it doesn't really address anything about Iverson's deficiencies relative, which don't disappear in this environment. What changes is his absolute efficiency, less so his relative efficiency. And small guys still have problems in today's game, and he was very small. And it doesn't really matter that he wouldn't be facing Dikembe Mutombo or Ben Wallace as far as shot-blocking is concerned.

Again, he wouldn't be a scrub, but like, this was all precipitated by the ludicrous assertion that he would average 40 in today's game. That's just not what would happen in today's environment at all. And if it did, it would be HORRIBLE for team offense.

[SelfishPlayer]

The players today that are lauded as top elite scorers really are such up until the point the opposition sends a trap their way. Luka has gone two entire consecutive postseasons without producing a single 40 point game. It's easy to trap someone that is switch hunting. It's difficult to trap someone that thrives off isolation on any and all defenders, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, bring them on it doesnt matter.

One clip of Luka taking a 3 to win the game instead of tying it doesn't show anything. Yes, there are a number of players who shoot more threes than perhaps they ought to in today's game, that's true, but it doesn't really address anything about Iverson's deficiencies relative, which don't disappear in this environment. What changes is his absolute efficiency, less so his relative efficiency. And small guys still have problems in today's game, and he was very small. And it doesn't really matter that he wouldn't be facing Dikembe Mutombo or Ben Wallace as far as shot-blocking is concerned.

Again, he wouldn't be a scrub, but like, this was all precipitated by the ludicrous assertion that he would average 40 in today's game. That's just not what would happen in today's environment at all. And if it did, it would be HORRIBLE for team offense.

Everyone is more efficient today. When you create a defensive 3 second rule and reduce the number of shot blockers everyone looks better on offense, until you send the trap their way. The following thread points out how league wide teams dont have great answers for the trap in this era: viewtopic.php?t=2470986
Allen Iverson could physically beat a trap all night long because that's what little men did in the past. Today guys need a pick so the trap is even easier to execute because the two defenders are already there in the area. The NBA changed the rules to increase player efficiency. Why shouldn't players look more effiecent if the rules were changed to make that the norm? There are a bunch of elite scorers right now that have zero answers for a trap. Their response is to give the ball up. You couldn't simply take the ball out of Jordan or Iverson's hands by sending them a trap, but Luka and Harden get off the basketball quick when trapped.


At the 5:30 mark watch Iverson beat a qualified non mismatch defender to the basket with only a first step. Notice how all five defenders have a foot in the paint when Iverson scores. That is atypical of this era all the way around. Iverson got buckets without any help.

Watch on YouTube

[tsherkin]

Everyone is more efficient today.

Yes, but most of them who crossed eras didn't change much in terms of RELATIVE efficiency, which is why I keep using that phrase. With league average rising, you have to be more efficient to maintain the gap between you and everyone else. So the rise in efficiency from increased FG% around the basket is offset by the proliferation of 3pt shooting, for example. And some of that dissipates in environments where the tempo can be controlled more. Or if you don't have really high-end spacing. Either way, someone who is getting the boost from the increased finishing around the rim isn't likely to do much more than just tread water.

That's what I've been trying to have sink home here.

Luka and Harden get off the basketball quick when trapped.

Using two examples isn't going to help you here. You keep coming home to Luka, but his game is stepbacks, playmaking and then using size against smaller guys in the post. It has never been about getting to the rim because he has never had elite quickness. I don't know why you keep going to him. Harden now is in his mid-30s and has slowed down considerably, but he got to the rim plenty when he was in his prime. He also isn't an elite scorer anymore. Which, after 16 years of career, isn't that surprising.

There's no way AI gets to the rim enough to average 40 in this league. That just isn't how the game works. Teams will wall off the paint and let him bomb 20-footers and threes to his heart's content, and he wasn't a good enough shooter to make that work for him. That was demonstrable in his actual career. But even in the absence of that, it still wouldn't matter.

What you aren't appreciating is that even shooting 55% from the floor with a .400 FTr at 80%, and shooting 33% on 4 3PA/g, he doesn't even hit 35.5 ppg. And that's at 24 FGA/g, which is already an immense amount. At twenty-seven FGA/g, he hits 39.66 ppg with those same numbers. And realize, that means he's shooting 59% inside the arc, which absolutely wouldn't happen at all.

It's nice to be cavalier and throw ridiculous numbers around, but this isn't a thing which would happen just because AI was fast and could handle a trap. In his BEST performance in his actual career, he got to 49.7% inside the arc on 14.7 FGA/g in 1998. He did similarly in 2008 with Denver, shooting 48.2% on 15.6 FGA/g. And that Denver team also had a bench PF who could hit 3s. They weren't a super-spacing team, so you imagine that he'd see an increase to more like what we see from various guards in the league today, for sure, but there's no way he's maintaining a Shaq-like percentage inside the arc on that sort of volume.

It just isn't how basketball works. And that's even before we note how unlikely it is that he'd play much more than 33-35 mpg, which would further restrict things. 99-08, he scored 28.9 ppg in his actual career, but PER36? 24.6.

The logistics of the feat you're describing don't line up. Speed alone wouldn't be good enough for AI to dominate this league, and he lacked the shooting to really take it to any kind of level far beyond.

[SelfishPlayer]

Everyone is more efficient today.

Yes, but most of them who crossed eras didn't change much in terms of RELATIVE efficiency, which is why I keep using that phrase. With league average rising, you have to be more efficient to maintain the gap between you and everyone else. So the rise in efficiency from increased FG% around the basket is offset by the proliferation of 3pt shooting, for example. And some of that dissipates in environments where the tempo can be controlled more. Or if you don't have really high-end spacing. Either way, someone who is getting the boost from the increased finishing around the rim isn't likely to do much more than just tread water.

That's what I've been trying to have sink home here.

Luka and Harden get off the basketball quick when trapped.

Using two examples isn't going to help you here. You keep coming home to Luka, but his game is stepbacks, playmaking and then using size against smaller guys in the post. It has never been about getting to the rim because he has never had elite quickness. I don't know why you keep going to him. Harden now is in his mid-30s and has slowed down considerably, but he got to the rim plenty when he was in his prime. He also isn't an elite scorer anymore. Which, after 16 years of career, isn't that surprising.

There's no way AI gets to the rim enough to average 40 in this league. That just isn't how the game works. Teams will wall off the paint and let him bomb 20-footers and threes to his heart's content, and he wasn't a good enough shooter to make that work for him. That was demonstrable in his actual career. But even in the absence of that, it still wouldn't matter.

What you aren't appreciating is that even shooting 55% from the floor with a .400 FTr at 80%, and shooting 33% on 4 3PA/g, he doesn't even hit 35.5 ppg. And that's at 24 FGA/g, which is already an immense amount. At twenty-seven FGA/g, he hits 39.66 ppg with those same numbers. And realize, that means he's shooting 59% inside the arc, which absolutely wouldn't happen at all.

It's nice to be cavalier and throw ridiculous numbers around, but this isn't a thing which would happen just because AI was fast and could handle a trap. In his BEST performance in his actual career, he got to 49.7% inside the arc on 14.7 FGA/g in 1998. He did similarly in 2008 with Denver, shooting 48.2% on 15.6 FGA/g. And that Denver team also had a bench PF who could hit 3s. They weren't a super-spacing team, so you imagine that he'd see an increase to more like what we see from various guards in the league today, for sure, but there's no way he's maintaining a Shaq-like percentage inside the arc on that sort of volume.

It just isn't how basketball works. And that's even before we note how unlikely it is that he'd play much more than 33-35 mpg, which would further restrict things. 99-08, he scored 28.9 ppg in his actual career, but PER36? 24.6.

The logistics of the feat you're describing don't line up. Speed alone wouldn't be good enough for AI to dominate this league, and he lacked the shooting to really take it to any kind of level far beyond.

De'Aaron Fox has one career game where he has scored over 49 points. SGA has four career games where he has scored over 49 points. Iverson has 14. Perimeter players in this era benefit from teammates that are superior shooters and rule changes that make them appear to be great scorers. Not only would Iverson average 40ppg+ but he would easily average 10apg+ from all of the strong shooting. With the stronger shooting comes shorter defenders, which Iverson has no problem with, thus increasing efficiency. Iverson's efficiency would increase by simply calling the same plays for him that are called for everyone else in this era, high screen roll to influence a weaker defenser switching on him.

Reasons for Iverson being more effective in this era:
1. Rule changes to increase the effectiveness of perimeter players. (Defensive three second, charge circle, touch fouls)
2. Hunting weak defenders due to the high incidense of switching
3. Better floor spacing shooters
4. Less rim protection
5. Heavy pick and roll/ball screen action
6."Getting down hill" the Russell Westbrook and Lebron James style of half court offense where they would routinely pull defenders out near half court in order to beat them "downhill" with pure foot speed off of a live dribble rather than using skill like a crossover. Iverson could do the same all day long making the game even simpler.
3. The game now has double picks for ball handlers these days. The league would probably outlaw this play if Iveraon had multipe 60 point game using it which I know he would:

Watch on YouTube

Dmich
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1189673189289096&vanity=nbatv

[tsherkin]

De'Aaron Fox has one career game where he has scored over 49 points. SGA has four career games where he has scored over 49 points. Iverson has 14.

And?

Iverson shot a lot at low efficiency while playing lots of minutes. Of course his raw scoring output was high. I don't understand why that was supposed to be a meaningful, salient remark, because it proves nothing except that AI shot a lot and played lots of minutes.

Perimeter players in this era benefit from teammates that are superior shooters and rule changes that make them appear to be great scorers. Not only would Iverson average 40ppg+ but he would easily average 10apg+ from all of the strong shooting.

So this is the point where I finally realize that you are trolling instead of attempting to have serious conversation.

You have a nice night.

[SelfishPlayer]

De'Aaron Fox has one career game where he has scored over 49 points. SGA has four career games where he has scored over 49 points. Iverson has 14.

And?

Iverson shot a lot at low efficiency while playing lots of minutes. Of course his raw scoring output was high. I don't understand why that was supposed to be a meaningful, salient remark, because it proves nothing except that AI shot a lot and played lots of minutes.

Perimeter players in this era benefit from teammates that are superior shooters and rule changes that make them appear to be great scorers. Not only would Iverson average 40ppg+ but he would easily average 10apg+ from all of the strong shooting.

So this is the point where I finally realize that you are trolling instead of attempting to have serious conversation.

You have a nice night.

The game has changed in many ways to make it easier. People like you present that as an increase in skill by players. The game will be easier for Iverson.

[Ito]

A thread assuming they could guard Iverson just say u wasn’t there

Iverson shot 34% from the field in that series. But I know, someone in this thread will tell me it’s not his fault. It’s because of the era he was in. It’s because of his teammates. Back then they used to force guys to mindlessly chuck bricks at gunpoint! He had no choice! There were no efficient scorers pre 2010!

No he was the go to guy go to play maker everything involved round him hit or miss their 2nd option was a put back, open three or pick and roll/pick and pop and that was after sum good defense and fast breaks they would get too after steals

He made it happen doe for the most part 8)

[mattg]

Yeah. That logic would lead to the conclusion its actually beneficial to have crippled or bad defenders on the court, because of some jedi mind trick it plays on the offense. That's obviously ridic.

That's not what I'm saying at all and you're making a really stupid leap in logic there. There is a MASSIVE difference between attacking a perceived defensive mismatch vs then talking about intentionally having bad defenders on the court, that's beyond a false equivalency. Specifically in the example I mentioned we're talking about baiting the offense into going to an offensive action that has a much lower expected PPP vs alternatives. You're also not factoring in things like how much clock is wasted just attempting to initiate the offense towards the mismatch when the defense is expecting it as well.

As far as the dude who quoted me, it feels like a misquote because he literally didn't address any specific aspect of the post and is talking about bad defending shooters which is just random as heck and irrelevant here. Not sure how posters end up talking about bad defenders when we are talking about force feeding mismatches in a cross match situation.

Wow, if you choose to disagree with my point about there's a correlation about bad defenders playing limited minutes because they are being targeted on defense then so be it.
3pt shooting is one of the biggest weapons on offense and it just doesn't makes sense to me that 3pt shooters would sit more than half of the game if they are not targeted on defense... unless of course that these 3pt shooters are also turnover machines... but it was not the case.
Coaches almost always find AND EXPLOIT the opposing team's weaknesses including hacking bad FT shooters like Mitchell Robinson, Shaq etc.
And it just makes perfect sense to me that they need to punish these bad defenders for staying on the court because if they don't, then these guys will just burn them on offense with a barrage of 3 pointers.

You're arguing against no one and nothing. I have no idea what point you are trying to make as you just quoted me and then started talking about something totally separate and not at all what anyone was talking about.

[Ritzo]

If Motumbo played today, he'd be a target on switches like Rudy Gobert, and he'll perform worse on the perimeter

[Ritzo]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

If KD and Steph can't even average 35, let alone 40 ppg in this era, then AI has no shot too. Unless you put him in the Wizards and let him shoot 35 FGs per game

[SelfishPlayer]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

If KD and Steph can't even average 35, let alone 40 ppg in this era, then AI has no shot too. Unless you put him in the Wizards and let him shoot 35 FGs per game

AI gets to the free throw line on another level than those guys. Pitiful that people want to take away one of Iverson's superpowers and that's his timelessness.

[Ritzo]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

If KD and Steph can't even average 35, let alone 40 ppg in this era, then AI has no shot too. Unless you put him in the Wizards and let him shoot 35 FGs per game

AI gets to the free throw line on another level than those guys. Pitiful that people want to take away one of Iverson's superpowers and that's his timelessness.

AI averaged 11.5 FTs in 2006, are you telling me that he will average 20 FTs today? James Harden averaged 11.0 FTs when he averaged 36 ppg, and everyone criticized him for shooting too much FTs. SGA averaged 8.8 last season (AI averaged 8.9 FTs in his career) and everyone was calling him a FOUL MERCHANT. Embiid, Harden and SGA bait for fouls but they never averaged more than 12 FTs per game

[SelfishPlayer]

If KD and Steph can't even average 35, let alone 40 ppg in this era, then AI has no shot too. Unless you put him in the Wizards and let him shoot 35 FGs per game

AI gets to the free throw line on another level than those guys. Pitiful that people want to take away one of Iverson's superpowers and that's his timelessness.

AI averaged 11.5 FTs in 2006, are you telling me that he will average 20 FTs today? James Harden averaged 11.0 FTs when he averaged 36 ppg, and everyone criticized him for shooting too much FTs. SGA averaged 8.8 last season (AI averaged 8.9 FTs in his career) and everyone was calling him a FOUL MERCHANT. Embiid, Harden and SGA bait for fouls but they never averaged more than 12 FTs per game

It's much easier to score at the basket in this era due to decreased rim protection. AI's numbers will increase there first and foremost. With an increase of attacking the basket comes an increase of free throw attempts. So I expect Iverson to have a uniquely high FTA.

[Yank3525]

AI's PPG probably wouldn't look all that different then what he did in his prime. So he would be a contender for the scoring title. The big difference would be percentages (his would go up). The league as a whole generates easier and more efficient shots.

[picc]

That's not what I'm saying at all and you're making a really stupid leap in logic there. There is a MASSIVE difference between attacking a perceived defensive mismatch vs then talking about intentionally having bad defenders on the court, that's beyond a false equivalency. Specifically in the example I mentioned we're talking about baiting the offense into going to an offensive action that has a much lower expected PPP vs alternatives. You're also not factoring in things like how much clock is wasted just attempting to initiate the offense towards the mismatch when the defense is expecting it as well.

Does it though? How do you know that? I'd contend it's a "really stupid leap in logic" to assert that's true when the opposite plays out so commonly.

You said this:

Part of it is that it's entirely predictable, the defense knows EXACTLY what the offense is going to try and do and that's much easier to defend AND now the defense is actually dictating how the possession plays out rather than the offense.

In today's NBA, where switch-hunting is the paradigm, what you described happens all the time. And yet it still results in an advantage for the offense... which is why they continue to do it, even though the defense knows! Right?

For example, the Cavs know teams are trying to switch on Darius Garland every possession -- and lo and behold, them knowing didn't mean jack. It still hurt Cleveland all season, to the point he had to leave games. The Celtics abused it. In the playoffs Miami openly talked about how the Cavs were harder to score on when Garland wasn't there. The Cavs did it to Miami too.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/44855909/tyler-herro-fires-back-darius-garland-defense
After the Cavs' 121-112 Game 2 victory on Wednesday, Garland was brutally honest about his team's offensive game plan to get out to a 2-0 lead.

"Pick on Tyler Herro," said Garland, who is averaging 24.0 points on 52% shooting in the two games. "Take care of the ball, don't play in tight spaces and pick on their weak defenders. Go at them."

The Heat knew "EXACTLY" what they were doing, and couldn't do a thing about it.

Many more examples than this, as you know. The absolute last thing a defense wants to do is encourage a team to iso their weakest defender. So what's your evidence for the statement you made? Because mine is clear on viewing, ubiquitous across the NBA, and has been for a long time.