1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Yahoo: 17pts decline per game from 84 to today

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by wireonfire, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. wireonfire

    wireonfire Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,665
    Likes Received:
    10
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=cnnsi-dissectingthede&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

    Dissecting the demise

    John Hollinger, SI.com






    Whither offense?

    Just 20 years ago, the NBA was in the midst of an offensive renaissance that had teams filling the nets like they were on an Alaskan fishing boat. It's difficult to remember now, but in 1984-85, the average NBA team scored 110.8 points per game. Every team in the league scored at least 104, while the Nuggets, Warriors and Kings all averaged more than 117. For a bit of perspective on how far things have sunk, that's a total the world champion Pistons didn't achieve once in the 2003-04 regular season.

    In fact, last season, scoring plummeted to just 93.4 points a game for each team, a whopping 17.4 point decrease in two decades. The top teams were even more defensive-minded. In the Eastern Conference finals, for instance, Detroit and Indiana played a horrific six-game series in which neither team managed to eclipse 85 points.

    The decline in offense is well known. But how did the league get here? While my SI.com colleagues are looking at some of the changes in techniques and attitudes that have allowed defense the upper hand, I'll be taking a more scientific approach by breaking down the numbers. The data should provide an explanation for the causes of the 17-point drop, as well as offer some insights into some solutions.

    Let's start with the big picture. There are only two ways scoring can decrease: One is for teams to play slower, which reduces the number of possessions each team has over the course of a game; the other is for teams to get fewer points out of each possession.

    Slow-motion hoops

    We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago.

    This is important because NBA teams score slightly more than one point for each time they have the ball. Those 13 chances could be expected to turn into about 13.3 points per game for each team. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

    Offensive offense

    While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

    Let's break down that 4.1 points-per-game difference, because we'll see some interesting trends.

    Offense breaks down into three categories -- shooting, avoiding turnovers, and offensive rebounding. And while the numbers are down, it isn't all doom and gloom for today's NBA. Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

    But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

    Brick city

    However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

    That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

    But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

    So.... What now?

    Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

    One presumes that the league's goal is to increase scoring -- or at the very least to curb the decline before basketball turns into hockey. That suggests a couple of alternatives. First, rule changes that boost the pace should have a much greater effect than those that make it easier to operate in the halfcourt. The paradox is that rule changes that make it harder for teams to walk it up and score effectively could actually increase scoring. Unfortunately, this approach is rife with unintended consequences. For instance, recent changes, such as the eight-second rule (forcing teams to get the ball across mid-court in eight seconds instead of the previous 10) and the changes in the illegal defense rule, have made things harder for offenses while having no appreciable impact on teams' willingness to run and press. The league may be reluctant to go down this road again.

    That leaves measures to improve a team's ability to score in the halfcourt. An obvious and long overdue one is being tried this preseason -- clamping down on forearm contact with dribblers and the gratuitous hand-checking that had become a staple of top defenses in recent seasons.

    Beyond that, some of the other things the league could do have already been tried and proven hugely unpopular. For instance, nearly everyone considers the 3-to-make-2 foul shot a joke, and an attempt at moving in the 3-point line in 1994-95 turned the league into the Athens Olympics. One hopes that the officials' clampdown on contact this preseason isn't one of those short-lived officiating trends that veteran refs forget by Christmas. Otherwise the league doesn't have a lot of options.

    In that case, commissioner Stern and his crew need to think long and hard about how to rescue offense. Most of the measures they can implement to increase pace make it harder to score in the halfcourt, while most of the measures that could make halfcourt scoring easier are even more unpopular with fans than the low-scoring games.

    The one remaining hope may be that the players themselves become better shooters. Based on the brickfest in Athens, there's a better chance of Billy Squier making a comeback.
     
  2. GoatBoy

    GoatBoy Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Billy Squier never should have danced in the Rock Me Tonight video. It was the end of his career.
     
  3. Jeff

    Jeff Clutch Crew

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    22,412
    Likes Received:
    361
    This was from SI and a really, REALLY good story about the decline of offense in the modern era.
     
  4. Toast

    Toast Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, I thought it was crap.

    He says that the decline in offense is because there are less offensive possessions per game. Then he goes on about how shooting percentages are actually up compared to 20 years ago. And yet he makes no correlation between the two.

    I'm sorry, but you can't just assume that if people were chunking up more shots that the higher shooting percentages would remain in tact.
     
  5. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,048
    Likes Received:
    23,938
    Why do we presume the goal of the league is to increase scoring? The league's goal should be to produce good entertaining basketball. For example, having better shooters will increase scoring AND produce more entertaining games. But having more free throws will increase scoring BUT produce less entertaining basketball.
     
  6. Severe Rockets Fan

    Severe Rockets Fan Takin it one stage at a time...

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Messages:
    5,923
    Likes Received:
    1,490
    I can't find where it said shooting percentages are up. In fact, I think it says that shooting % and possessions are both down.
    This actually gives you your correlation...

    Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

    Hell, if they want faster games, why not shorten the 24 second clock to 22 or even 20 secs.? That should have the effect they are looking for.
     
    #6 Severe Rockets Fan, Oct 29, 2004
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2004
  7. Jeff

    Jeff Clutch Crew

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    22,412
    Likes Received:
    361
    Actually, he said that shooting percentages are WAY down:

    Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season.

    He says that 3-point percentages have increased, but it is a FAR lower percentage shot (35 percent on average) AND teams are taking FIVE TIMES as many three's today as they were 20 years ago.
     
  8. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    3 things.


    1. at least it didn't just go to the no one has fundamentals, the league sucks, we hate basketball argument. it actually addressed the fact the game is slower and the fact defenses get away with a lot today (on top of the fact they're just better).


    2. that indiana/detroit series was not horrific. in fact, the game where detroit had 19 blocks and indy had 7 (and tayshaun blocked reggie) was probably the greatest defensive game of all time and i thought amazing to watch. while neither had great offenses, those defenses were spectacular and fun to watch. the physicality, the team work, the amazingly good rotations, the fact every shot was challenged, the blocks from all angles, the intensity. it was awesome. but people like bob ryan will get on around the horn the next day and tell us how far the nba has fallen. bs. that was a great game if you like basketball and not just offense.

    3. since it mentioned 5 times as many 3 being shot. i've been wondering, did rudy popularize the 3 point shot? while i'm pretty sure we were setting some attempts and makes records back in the hakeem/rudy days, did anyone else sort of start the trend of shooting tons of 3's that lots of teams do now? i know you never see it in any espn classic games. i know even watching hakeem's 52 point game on espn classic, we hardly ever shot 3's. we had a few 3 point shooters on the team it seemed, and yet we almost seemed to purposely not shoot them. even maxwell wasn't shooting them. they either wouldn't look for it, or would just wait to pass it back in, or would swing it around and do something else. i had to watch forever to see us make a 3.

    and yet 3 years later we're launching 3's all over the place, running the spokes and wheel thing, having 4 3 point shooters on the court with a dominant inside presence. now the spurs shoot quite a few 3's with duncan, the lakers while using the name triangle offense pretty much went to our offense when shaq posted, the heat with mourning did this. there were plenty of inside presences throughout the nba in the past but no one shot 3's. so who did it before us?
     
  9. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,246
    Likes Received:
    28,751
    . . . or the RISE OF DEFENSE

    say what u want
    but there was not that much defense in the 80s

    Rocket River
     
  10. m_cable

    m_cable Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    9,455
    Likes Received:
    73
    I've heard some experts/stat gurus that directly attribute the proliferation of the 3 pt shot to Houston's first Championship. They had a stat about how 3pters ballooned up right after 94.

    Although I'm wondering if it had anything to do with the shorter 3pt line. Does anybody remember what years they brought in the 3pt line during.
     
  11. Stack24

    Stack24 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    11,744
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    From 94-95 to 96-97
     
  12. m_cable

    m_cable Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    9,455
    Likes Received:
    73
    Oh well that might explain it too. The NBA teams started shooting more 3s as a result of the shorter line. And maybe when the line was backed up again, the 3 was so much more a part of the game that they continued to shoot them.
     
  13. DavidS

    DavidS Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2000
    Messages:
    8,605
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. It's one part. The line was moved in, but half way back after a few years. The Rockets were the most prolific 3-pt shooting team in 94 (most attempts, most made). Many shooters after 95 started shooting when they shouldn't have been (not everyone could shoot like Reggie Miller).

    Here's an article about rules change in the D-league regarding the 3pt shot.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/10/18/nbdl.3point/

    One of the positive effects of the 3 is psychological against the other team (imagine hitting 5 three in a row). The Rockets had that advantage in 94 because we actually had 5 players that could hit that shot consistently. We had lots of spot up long range shooters. But we could get away with it because of Hakeem. And ony because of Hakkem. Not all teams had that luxury. Yet, they still fell in love with the 3.
     
    #13 DavidS, Nov 1, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2004
  14. DavidS

    DavidS Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2000
    Messages:
    8,605
    Likes Received:
    0
    An interesting transition was how the player used the 3 pt line back then (pre-84). It was a bonus shot. Something you took as an option. And they treated it like that.The mid-range shot (or high percentage pass/shot under the basket) was the main offensive scheme for most teams back then.

    Even Calvin Murphy wasn't a good 3 pt shooter, but he could hit 50% of his shots from 15-18ft. The 3 pt just wasn't used as much. It could be true that some teams saw what the 94 Rockets did and got hooked on it like crack. Thinking that it would give them an easier way to produce points, rather than going into the post or passing for the best mid-range shot. That has gone out of style.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now