I do watch the games. But hey, I'm glad you like that form of basketball. You want to stare in awe, I want to see the game as its supposed to be played.
Proving my point that overall scoring eventually trended down... and team A helped pioneer the physical era (transitioning from the showtime era where everybody scored). Compare teams now to the 93/94 Knicks... or the 90's Spurs. Those teams won with suffocating/physical defenses that simply wouldn't be allowed today. Defenses have evolved to different schemes now because of the lack of physical play.... in the end, being more physical would hamper offensive execution/finesse/shooting more-so than simple schemes.
So who decides how it's supposed to be played and what form of basketball is better? Nostalgia and the "Everything was better back then" crowd?
No, maybe the rulebook that the other teams are forced to play by? If you wanna take away the illegal screen, handchecking, even flagrant fouls I'm on board, just make it so that all teams play by the same rules. This WWE type of officiating is getting really tiresome. What the Warriors in particular get away with is astounding. The Spurs also are having a similar albeit less prolific season, and yet the officiating on offense and defense seems a lot more in line with what is called on the rest of the league. They don't need the illegal screen to prop up their young stud. They just play. I hate them a lot, but I actually respect them. Warriors, not so much.
I posted the video one page ago, tell me how many of his points are a result of blatant illegal screens?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html PPG and FG% were actually much higher prior to 95. The drought from 95-2004 should also be heavily blamed on overcoaching and brutal slowing of the pace, the rules alone don't explain it. And I posted the video one page ago, yet to see a reply. Tell us how many of Curry's baskets would be prevented abolishing the modern handcheck-rule, I don't see it.
By my count there are at least 10 instances of it. Don't get me wrong, in transition Curry is deadly, but so are a number of other players. Also, there could be more instances of it in non scoring plays as well, 10 fouls could easily change the tide of the game especially one decided by less than 10 points.
Please name them by sec. And you talked about his scoring, not fouls from other players and non-scoring situations. Also here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQRD8WArdLM The bias here is ridiculous.
Eradicating Illegal Defenses does not help the offensive player out. But what it did do was make the game faster (in response to more sophisticated defenses) as coaches started recruiting more gazelle 3 and D players, because they had a much bigger role now when illegal defenses go away. Also, going small is much more achievable with no illegal defenses. No illegal defense is by far the biggest change. Nothing else comes close. I predicted when that happened someone would field 3 PFs, and others would go small. Sure enough, the Pistons won a title with rotations that included featuring a 3 PFs -- to stop Shaq, Kobe and Karl Malone. And going small is something weak teams do a lot since the rules change, and has even recently found a place on the very best teams.
btw: in Yung-T's video, the times it includes the OKC possession first, every time WB has the ball, GSW uses a defense that would have been Illegal Defense prior to 2001. e v e r y t i m e. WB would have destroyed the league with Illegal Defense still in place. Harden, too. and Curry would benefit from it, as well.
Tru. It's funny how basically no one in these discussions acknowledges that many rule-changes also allow defense to be much more versatile and effective nowadays, abandoning illegal defense being one of the most significant changes. I guess people only want to remember the changes that suit their narrative the most.
Agree on illegal defense somewhat... But why eliminate nearly all contact on the perimeter as well? Defenses may be sophisticated and more dynamic... But the league now will always favor offense/shot-making vs. physical play that hinders that. Had they not instituted the no-contact on the perimeter type refereeing, teams would be able to play more one-on-one/traditional help defense vs. what they're forced to adapt to now.
I hate Curry. Same way I hated Kobe, then Lebron. Maybe its all the jock-riding. Or maybe its because as soon as the Rockets finally look like contenders, a dynasty comes along and blows us off. Now I'm sad again...
I said nothing about his scoring, I said he would be half the player he is. Regardless, I'll still bite. I've earmarked the Wiz/Warriors game and I count 4 illegal screens just in scoring plays. Those screens count for 11 points. The warriors won by 14. You take away those screens (and assume that the Wiz DO NOT score on the opposite end) and the game is definitely winnable for them still. If the Wiz turned those deadball turnovers into scores that could easily be a 19-23 point swing. 1:12 Bogut hip extension 1:53 Speights leg extension 2:03 Green hip extension and moving screen 3:05 Green leg extension and moving screen Like I said, that's just with Curry scoring plays. Curry getting open also opens the doors for an assist on a kickout as well. Assists still account for points, and last time I checked Curry is seen as God like for his prolific passing as well. Believe me, I don't say this out of spite but envy. I wish I could see what you see when we watch these video, pure offensive goodness. It isn't there. The Warriors to their credit have masterfully practiced these moving screens on offense, and they do an amazing job of covering up Curry's defensive lapses in ways we don't do with Harden.
I think everybody feels that way about all time greats. If only we had that once-in-a-life time player just like we had with Hakeem...everybody would hate our team too.
Nick, So just say it. You agree that no hand-checking was offset by elimination of illegal defenses. To me, that's what you said You dont 'force" a coach to use any defense he wants. You force them not too via making up am illegal defense rule. Coaches will play straight-up man defense, because it's the best defense. But they also love having options in their back pocket to stop the WB, Harden's and Curry's of the world versus being protected by illegal defenses
I don't think league specifically wants less defense/more offense, I think it's more nuanced than that. What they don't want is more "muck it up" style of defense, that slows things down and makes things, on both ends, more stagnant. Hockey, football and basketball have all evolved to limit how much teams can turn things into a grind-it-out physical fight, but I would argue that these sports have largely done it without removing the ability the ability to play great and innovative defense. In basketball specifically, I think teams actually play smarter and more interesting defense than teams in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s or '00s played. This forced the evolution of offense into (IMO) more interesting styles. Both sides of the ball "won" and the product is better for it.
The NBA loves scoring. Nobody wants to watch an 88-87 slugfest. People want to watch 160-148 run and gun games. The NBA has shifted the focus accordingly. I don't totally disagree with that either. If I want to see that type of play I will watch the NCAA. I'm not saying that the rules shouldn't have changed, what I'm saying is we need to end the disproportionate calls, the superstar calls, and such. Like last night against the Spurs, Harden gets a no call on what was evidently a blocking foul. Then the Spurs proceed to do the exact same thing 2/3 times on the other end and get the block call. More uniformity is what I would like.
The counter to that (and in support of players from those times) is that they were able to achieve offensive feats despite the muck-it-up style defenses that would noticeably hamper some of these smaller perimeter players. In the end, all leagues favor scoring... As soon as defense catches up to it (which may very well happen again in the NBA), there will be rule changes to off-set it.
It was mitigated... But the rules still heavily favor offensive/perimeter execution. To the point that it's less and less important to be a bigger/stronger player to have success on the perimeter (speed is by far the biggest strength.... Something that wasn't necessarily true in the Bird/Magic days). I still feel that the no-contact on the perimeter has the bigger impact... And it's what players of previous eras will specifically site as the biggest difference between games back then and games now. The growth of the perimeter game is also eliminating the advantages that a skilled big-man/low-post player once had, and is also causing a disappearance of the mid-range game as well. Not that the NBA really cares, though... perimeter dominance typically leads to higher scoring/more fast-paced games and more viewers.
