Hand Checking and Points Per Possession (OT)

[Ice Man]

If you haven't encountered my hobbyhorse before, I have a LOT of problem with the almost universal narrative that the change in the handchecking rule created today's high-scoring version of the game.

Hand checking was banned entering the 2004-05 season. The rule definitely had an impact, I do not deny that. Here are the average points scored per 100 possessions in the NBA in the 5 years before that rule took place and the 5 years after -

5 Years Before (through 2004) - 103.6
5 Years After (through 2009) - 106.9

So OK, that is a 3.3 point difference. Meaningful. The next 5 years, which takes us through to the 2013-2014 season, were similar to the previous 5 years.

5 Years Next (through 2014) - 106.4

That makes for a 2.8 point difference.

So overall, in a full decade after hand checking was eliminated, scoring went up by about 3 points per 100 possessions from the 5 years before, when hand checking was allowed.

Here are the two problems with the prevailing narrative -

1) People make out the rule to be worth MUCH more than 3 points. But that's a pretty hard argument to make, given that for a full 10 years the different was a steady 3 points. It's not as if there was a gradually rising trend. So the argument for the importance of eliminating hand checking has to be something like "well it wasn't super important for a long time but now players have learned to play in a different way that hand checking would stop." That is a counterfactual. We don't know that hand checking would stop how the game is played today. Counterfactuals are unprovable.

I don't like taking somebody's word on an unprovable issue.

2) Of even greater problem for the theory that eliminating hand checking was a revolutionary event for scoring is that during the era of the late Eighties and early Nineties, which is typically the era that fans of hand checking point to (because for them it was the golden age, people idolize the Bad Boys and Bulls more than they do the teams of the early 2000s, I mean Good Lord the Nets made the 2003 Finals), scoring was HIGHER than the 10 years after hand checking was eliminated. Below are the scoring averages for the 5 years from 1989 through 1993, those being the two Bad Boys titles and the first 3 Bulls' titles.

5 Years of Bad Boys/Bulls (through 1993) - 108.0

I have never seen a single person arguing about the importance of the hand checking rule acknowledge that scoring was EASIER circa 1990 than in the 10 years after hand checking was eliminated. I mean, it's hugely important data for the claim and yet nobody addresses it.

So, that is my problem. I am not saying No, but I am saying that if people simply talk without referring the data, which seems to be the only thing they ever do, I'm not buying.

[dougthonus]

I would say efficiency has increased for four major reasons, you could probably break down those into sub groups depending how pick you want to be.

Pace is one that I don't think people talk about much, but to illustrated it with a small sample set, I took a few years to represent these eras as an example because I'm too lazy to try and bring in a bunch of data, so maybe more data would show this differently.

1990: Pace 98.3, ORTG 108.1
1991: Pace 97.8, ORTG 107.9

2003: Pace 91.0, ORTG 103.6
2004: Pace 90.1, ORTG 102.9

2005: Pace 90.9, ORTG 106.1 (hand check rule)
2006: Pace 90.5, ORTG 106.2

2023: Pace 99.1, ORTG 114.8
2024: Pace 98.5, ORTG 115.3

Call it roughly gap of running 8 possessions a game (or roughly 8% faster) would appear to cause an ORTG boost around 4.5 points per 100 possessions.

Hand checking looks like it causes about 3 points per 100 possessions as you pointed out.

Then whether you want to call this one or multiple areas is up to you, but better analytical shots cause about 4.5 points per 100 possessions. This is largely about the rise in three point shots, but another way to look at it is the limitation of isolation plays, long two point shots, and post up attempts.

The shot people often end up with is a three, but a big piece of the efficiency is also comes from limiting all the iso ball pounding and feeding of the post and backing down which gives you way more opportunity to break down the defense and get a three, a dunk, an open drive to the basket that yields FTs, etc.. Teaching guys to set up for that open jumper at the three point line instead of the long two, also has increased the efficiency of the open jumpers these shots made.

2p% is also way up with this new era, and that is largely about getting rid of the shots from 10-23 ft, but it's also a huge amount about getting rid of post ups. 0-3 ft shots are now at 70% vs 60% in the post up era which accounts for about 2 points pf that 4.5 point increase that people attribute to threes.

I'd guess if you broke it down, you'd have something like:

So if you look at 2003 era of: 103 ORTG to 2024 115 ORTG
12 total points:
Pace: 4.5 points
Hand checking: 3 points
Replacing long 2s with 3s: 2.5 points
Killing post ups: 2 points

Might be something off in my math here, but when you realize that 3 point shots are actually below league average efficiency, it obviously isn't the whole story.

[Ice Man]

Thanks, Doug. As you point out, offenses adapt. Typically (OK basically always) when people write about trends in NBA scoring, they omit that aspect and focus entirely on rules. But as you write, I think that rule changes, while a part of the story, are not the major reason for the scoring uptick.

Fun fact - The following teams in the 2010-11 season gave up fewer points per 100 possessions than did the '89 Pistons.

1) Boston
2) Chicago
3) Orlando
4) Milwaukee
5) Miami
6) Los Angeles

So, a full 7 years after hand-checking was banned 20% of the league stopped players from scoring better than did the championship Bad Boys team, when hand checking allegedly permitted them to prevent the soft, easy buckets that the modern era players get.

[MrSparkle]

I do think allowing hand-checking (and rim “goaltending”) would be a bone to throw the defense.

It would mean offensive guards like Shai, Brunson, Haliburton, even Luka would see a slight reduction in efficiency and dominance.

Also maybe the Celtics take a hit with their reliance on “contested” 3s.

All in all, there’s parity in the league, and ugly iso ball and bad defensive effort gets punished severely. In many ways, the league has actually made a competitive “product” where the best effort and skills at 5 positions wins.

[Ice Man]

I would guess that bringing hand checking back would improve the game, by somewhat lowering scoring and increasing the physicality. But I can understand why the NBA would be reluctant to make that change ... for one, it would reverse a previous decision and for another, what if the analysis is wrong and the league gradually degenerates back to as it was in the early 2000s. (Which as I have written, I don't think would be the case, but the thought would be there.)

[dougthonus]

I would guess that bringing hand checking back would improve the game, by somewhat lowering scoring and increasing the physicality. But I can understand why the NBA would be reluctant to make that change ... for one, it would reverse a previous decision and for another, what if the analysis is wrong and the league gradually degenerates back to as it was in the early 2000s. (Which as I have written, I don't think would be the case, but the thought would be there.)

I think the league has more of a perception problem, because too many of their famous broadcast teams regularly trash the league for shooting too many threes and now it has become a constant media story that has caught momentum. They act like this is a low skill era of the game instead of an incredibly skilled era of the game. A lot of the trash comes from former players that couldn't shoot which is even more ironic.

90s basketball featured three different things which were awful compared to today's NBA:
1: Just mugging people and calling it defense
2: 6'10 guys spending 12 seconds every shot clock backing someone down to get a post up
3: Clear outs for wing players where you send four guys to one side and have a guard back someone down in the mid post on a clear out because you couldn't play zone

Silver's biggest (and maybe only) failure as commissioner is not coming down harder on major broadcast partners for not better controlling this narrative about how the NBA is crap today, because it's ESPN and TNT that have pushed it the most.

[Ice Man]

Silver's biggest (and maybe only) failure as commissioner is not coming down harder on major broadcast partners for not better controlling this narrative about how the NBA is crap today, because it's ESPN and TNT that have pushed it the most.

Yep. Most fans don't realize that ex-players have such a large agenda. It dominates their views. I am old enough to remember the commentary in the 1993 Finals, when Charles Barkley met with Michael Jordan at Mike's restaurant between games. The players from the Seventies wouldn't shut up about how the "modern" players were so soft, they were all friendly, there was no real intensity in the games anymore. Now people think back to '93 as when the players were fierce!

In 25 years, as you know, the guys who are playing now will be the broadcasters/analysts, and they will tell audiences about how the game has declined since their golden age.

[GetBuLLish]

Silver's biggest (and maybe only) failure as commissioner is not coming down harder on major broadcast partners for not better controlling this narrative about how the NBA is crap today, because it's ESPN and TNT that have pushed it the most.

I'm sorry, but this is pure cope. People dislike the NBA product because it is simply not as entertaining as it once was, not because they have been bamboozled by a few broadcasters.

Does your analysis also apply to the All Star game or is that hated now also because people are too dumb to think for themselves about what entertains them?

[Ice Man]

Do people dislike the NBA? Soaring franchise values suggest that if they do, the owners aren't worried.

[wickywack]

Do people dislike the NBA? Soaring franchise values suggest that if they do, the owners aren't worried.

This thread brings up two things that may or may not be related:

(1) Something is wrong with the game. This is often grounded on viewership - or more accurately the lack of viewership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Finals_television_ratings shows viewership cratering. In contrast, Super Bowl ratings are at record highs.

(2) Offense is out of whack. Points per possession - https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html - is way above historical averages. Indeed, the last 9 seasons are the highest 9 on record and the numbers seem to be edging ever higher (though it level off a bit this year).

These two things do seem to correlate. Back in 2016, points per possession was at an average level. That year also featured a compelling, heavily watched finals not far from Jordan era levels. Correlation isn't causation.

But to the extent viewership and offensive imbalance are problems, they are problems that largely materialized in the last 10 years. Don't go back to the 80s or 90s. Just go back to 2026.

So, in terms of offense, I'd agree hand checking is - at best - a small factor. I'm even less sure of pace as a factor - much of the 70s and 80s was played at a higher pace than today but with far lower efficiency.

I'm also skeptical that this is "just" analytics. The '17 Warriors, with Durant in the mix, would have been an average offense in '24 - 16th in the league - by points per possession.

[Ice Man]

I'm also skeptical that this is "just" analytics. The '17 Warriors, with Durant in the mix, would have been an average offense in '24 - 16th in the league - by points per possession.

Good post, thanks. I would say that Doug argued for the importance of considering analytics, but not that the scoring increase was not just because of analytics. But that's a side issue, one for Doug to address.

My question is that if hand checking, pace, and analytics don't cover the sharp recent rise in scoring, then what does? What is missing?

I see three possibilities -

1) Better offensive tactics -- team strategies that bewilder defenses
2) Higher offensive skills, in particular 3 point shooting
3) Weaker defenses, either due to less athleticism or not trying as hard

I don't believe the third, so that leaves either the first two items or something that I am missing. Thoughts?

[wickywack]

Good post, thanks. I would say that Doug argued for the importance of considering analytics, but not that the scoring increase was not just because of analytics. But that's a side issue, one for Doug to address.

My question is that if hand checking, pace, and analytics don't cover the sharp recent rise in scoring, then what does? What is missing?

I see three possibilities -

1) Better offensive tactics -- team strategies that bewilder defenses
2) Higher offensive skills, in particular 3 point shooting
3) Weaker defenses, either due to less athleticism or not trying as hard

I don't believe the third, so that leaves either the first two items or something that I am missing. Thoughts?

The Warriors are an interesting case here. The '24 Warriors (117.8) have a higher ORtg than the '17 Warriors (115.6) despite their big 3 past their primes, Durant's departure, and a lack of comparable talent added. So, I don't see (2) being a major factor here. The Warriors are less skilled, but scoring more regardless.

Some other factors to consider:

4) The game is fundamentally different -- a combination of rules and interpretation of rules. This is tempting. Today's advanced ball handling is yesterday's moving violation (travelling or double dribbling). Today's defensive foul is yesterday's offensive foul. Those are changes that would tilt the game toward offense and probably have over the decades. But has much really changed regarding the rules in just 10 years? I'm less sure.

5) The regular season is less meaningful, players are putting less effort in, and that skews toward offense (a la all star games). *Playoff* ORtg is interesting here. The last few seasons are still the highest, but the skew isn't as strong. '87 is the 4th highest. '92 the 5th. But the top 3 seasons are still from the last 4 years.

6) League / team composition -- defensively oriented players are less likely to make today's league and/or get minutes. This is perhaps the same as (3). The pool of available players probably didn't get worse defensively, but some of those players aren't making the league. The '17 Warriors had two players in their top 7 (Livingston and Pachulia) who basically took no 3's. In '24, they didn't do that. They were much more likely to have 5 players on the floor who could take 3's. This is also related to (1) as well.

[Ice Man]

I am tempted by numbers #4 and #6. Although #4 is somewhat problematic, as while it's true that offensive players are given more benefit of the doubt these days than during the Nineties, I don't think that holds over the past decade, when scores have risen the most. For example, league has attempted to crack own on foul baiting with rip throughs and when the offensive player leans into the defender. And I don't think that travelling is called differently today than it was 10 years ago. So, hmmm.

#6 makes sense. More room in the league for finesse players means less room for Tyler Hansbrough.

[wickywack]

To #1 and #6, perhaps part of the answer is right there in the '17 Warriors lineup. Zaza Pachulia started 70 games and featured in the Warriors most frequent (by far) 5 man combo. By comparison, the "Death Lineup" got less than half the court time.

Today, they'd just play the Death Lineup the bulk of the minutes. Draymond / Durant at center? No problem.

On a somewhat similar note, back in '98, both Longley and Wennington were injured during a stretch of regular season, forcing Phil Jackson to start a Harper/Jordan/Kukoc/Pippen/Rodman lineup for a 12 game stretch, where they more or less crushed it, even against "traditional" big men. Drop them in today's game, and that's their primary lineup.

[Ice Man]

On a somewhat similar note, back in '98, both Longley and Wennington were injured during a stretch of regular season, forcing Phil Jackson to start a Harper/Jordan/Kukoc/Pippen/Rodman lineup for a 12 game stretch, where they more or less crushed it, even against "traditional" big men. Drop them in today's game, and that's their primary lineup.

Yep, aside from being short on 3 point shooting (as was every '98 team) that is a thoroughly modern lineup. Four guys who can get their own shot, and the 5th being a defender/rebounder/rim runner. Plus everybody except for Toni was a stud defender who could switch, as is also the modern style.

Hell, that's a track team.