Harden is beginning to remind me a lot of guys like Dirk or Hakeem in that he's establishing himself as an unbelievable, transcendent talent whose good enough to carry a team, but some of his best years are being wasted with somewhat mediocre talent surrounding him... Those guys (Hakeem, Dirk, etc) didn't win a title until they were arguably just beginning their decent from their primes. I could see something similar happening with Harden. Especially if Chris Paul can't stay healthy these playoffs... Or Scott Foster officiates more than one of our games in any given playoffs series. Just like those two, I think Harden will continue to improve until he's 30+, but with a proper [healthy] supporting cast, Harden could/should already have a ring or two on his fingers, just like Hakeem should have at 29. Yes, yes, I know any player can win with enough talent around them, but it's just such a shame to see someone as good as Harden come so close and fall just short for that reason. ... Of course, halfway decent officiating would help, too. EDIT: To be fair, Harden had a great supporting cast last year until Anderson castrated himself, Luc got hurt, and [most importantly] Paul got injured. There's more he could do, but I'm not hating on Morey. Luck is also such a big role in this... tl;dr: Harden is amazing, and I really hope he gets the ring he deserves in Houston soon.
Agree 1 million percent. The thing with Harden that people don't seem to recognize is how physical he is. Hand checks are overrated nostalgic bs imo.
It's kind of semantic. What I mean is that he was basically at his peak or just beginning his decline. In other words, he didn't get any better from that point, though when exactly he started to get worse is up for debate (I think it's clear the injuries and decline began by the 95-96 season at the latest, though). Many stars win titles early on their way up: Kobe with Shaq, Duncan with Robinson, Wade with the refs, etc. Many others just win some slightly before their peak because they're just that good (Lebron, Jordan, etc... not that they didn't also have help). But guys like the ones I mentioned are as good as many of these players, but just didn't have the luck of championship caliber support when they were younger (Hakeem almost did with Sampson, though).
It doesn't appear that you fully understand the old illegal defense rules. Those rules prevented teams from double teaming a player without the ball. That didn't create driving room. It was the postup players that benefited from those illegal defense rules. Perimeter players didn't need to be double teamed because the defenders could hand check and use forearm bars to prevent them from getting to where they needed to go. Because defenders could be that physical and prevent a ballhandler from going around them, the defender didn't back off as you see today, they were right up on their man. In today's game, since the defender can't touch or impede his man, he has to back off. That allows the offensive player room to make moves and use all of their ball handling skills. Players can start to drive and then stop to create space or many players such as Harden are using a step back to create space. When the defender is playing off you to stop the drive then a step back easily creates enough space to get a shot off. That's not the case if the defender is right there on you and has his hands on you. Here's some things to remember about the old illegal defense rules: - You couldn't double team a player who didn't have the ball. You were allowed to double a player with the ball. - Defenders had to stay within arms length (3 ft) of their man but only when they were on the same side of the court as the ball (strong side). The popular set in those days was to isolate your best player on one side of the court and then put your other 4 players on the opposite side. That forced the other defenders to go to the other side of the court (middle line of the court) but they no longer had to stay within 3ft of their man. - If an offensive player on the weak side was above the 3 point line, then his defender had to stay above the free throw line. So, when teams isolated, there was usually two weakside defenders standing at the free throw line regardless of where the man that they were guarding was on the weak side. - You could double the man with the ball but you had to go directly to him on the double and once you started then you had to go all the way. - Because of handchecking and legal use of forearms, there wasn't much driving to the hoop. It was too easy to stop players. Instead, the lone player isolating on the strong side was usually forced to turn his back on the defender and try to back his man down. This was great if you were a Charles Barkley who was strong enough to back any defender down or if you were an Olajuwon who could post up on the block. Those guys got the opportunity to play 1-on-1 and they usually won that matchup. Barkley turned it into an artform. He'd back his man down extremely slowly and the whole time he's watching for the double to come at him. If the double comes then he hits the open man. Barkley took forever to back his man down, that way if the defender starts to come over for the double and stops then it's obvious. When guys started to double and then stopped Barkley would point out the guy to the refs while still continuing with his slow backdown. It was highly effective but not too much fun to watch. That's why the NBA instituted the rule about the 5 second backdown, it was the Barkley rule. A guy like Steph Curry doesn't benefit from those illegal defense rules. Nobody would be trying to double team him. A defender would be handchecking him and preventing him from driving. That would also mean that the defender would be right on top of him. Curry wouldn't be able to create space off the dribble as he does today. Curry can iso all day long but if his man can play up on him and bump him, he's going to have trouble getting his shot off. He'd have difficulty driving because bigger stronger guards would be forcing him away from where he wants to go. Even if you get by your man, there's still going to be two defenders sitting at the free throw line and they can easily get into the paint before a driver could get there and those guys would be putting hits on him everytime that he went into the lane. The current Curry isn't equipped to take all those hits, especially when most of them wouldn't even be fouls. If today's players were playing under the old rules, then they would adapt their games and play differently. Harden would likely have to develop a postup game in order to take advantage of his strength. Harden hasn't been a good postup player in his career. His postup numbers are similar to Dwight Howards but if he was playing under the old rules then maybe he would have developed a postup game. If he did then he'd be able to take advantage of the illegal defense rules of that era and back his man down due to his strength. What he wouldn't be be doing is facing up his defender and taking 20 or so dribbles and stepping back. That doesn't work when the defender is in your face. Harden could certainly drive but he would get hit every time and he wouldn't be getting the touch foul calls. He'd likely stop hunting fouls and try to finish through contact more. Lebron is a big guy. The old rules would be fine for him. He could back guys down and post up. He wouldn't get the free path to the basket that he gets today but he'd still be effective because he's so big and athletic. Curry would likely have to bulk up to take the punishment of that era. He wouldn't be able to get all the shots off the dribble that he's so good at today. He'd more that likely play more like a Reggie Miller and be running off a ton of picks to try and free himself up. That's not really his game but he could adapt. The big difference is that on every pick he runs off, he's likely getting hit. That's what they did in that era. That's why he'd have to be bigger and stronger to take the punishment. Regardless, he'd never be big or strong enough to back his man down and take advantage of the illegal defense rules of the era. The rules changes that removed hand checking and use of the forearm turned the league into a perimeter league. The new rules favored quick athletic guys, that's pretty obvious. Those rule changes are what allowed those smaller quicker players to be able to drive to the hoop. Here's a good article that sums up the changes and how they changed the league. The new rules definitely create more offense and are more fan friendly. No doubt about that but that's not really what's being discussed. Today's style of play wouldn't work "as is" under the old rules. Those rules were weighted to favor big strong guys. https://newsok.com/article/3445220/...nge-nba-has-become-a-perimeter-players-league
All you have to do is to look at how play changed once the rules changed. All of a sudden little guards can now get to the rim and kick the ball out. Just look at the numbers. You don't think that there's a reason that guards became so much more effective as soon as the rules changed? No doubt that overall players shoot the 3 better today. That's because the current rules allow players to get more open 3s since defenders are forced to back off and can't touch their man. More players focus on shooting 3s today because the advantage is much larger. The entertainment value of the old rules is irrelevant to the discussion. That's how they played. Whether you liked it or not has no bearing on how well current players would play under those rules. Go watch the '95 Finals and tell me that defense was lackluster. It certainly wasn't aesthetically pleasing but you can't say that it wasn't difficult to score.. As I've said multiple times, show me one current NBA player or coach that will claim that the game is more physical now or that it's not easier to score. There's got to be somebody that will say it if it's true, right?
You really don't think that having fewer big guys on the court makes it easier for smaller guys to rebound? How can it not? You're basing your logic on the idea that 3 point shots are careening all over the court. That's not the case. This isn't the YMCA league where guys are throwing the ball up off the front of the rim and it's shooting 20 feet away. Today's 3 point shooters are good, everyone knows that. Very few of their misses are going very far. All you have to do is look at the average rebounding distance in the league. The top rebounders all have a an average rebounding distance of less than 5 feet. If you look at every player in the NBA currently averaging over 5 rebounds a game, the longest avg rebounding distance is 8.9 ft (Kyrie). The lane is 16 ft wide and the ft line is 15 feet away. How many missed shots do you think are going past the FT line? Not very many. The overwhelming number of rebounds are in the paint. What's your logic for the Warriors being able to pull opponents out of the paint and grab offensive rebounds? Also, if we're discussing how current players would play under the old rules then why would you qualify your statement to assume that they were using a current rule that wasn't in effect back then (def 3 sec)? Let's assume the Warriors are playing the Hakeem Rockets or the Shaq Lakers. Why would Hakeem or Shaq ever go out on the perimeter? To guard Looney or Draymond at the arc? Why? GSW going to go to the death lineup? You still have Draymond or Iggy that you can leave ungarded on the 3 pt line. Curry and Thompson or Green going to outrebound Shaq or Hakeem in the paint? That's a mismatch. You're missing the point. If a player can hand check and use and arm bar to easily stop you from driving then they don't have to play off of you. You'd have no space to shoot. Defenders aren't worried about you going around them because they can easily impede your progress. Curry's game is all about creating space. If he can't get separation then he's got problems. It's not that he's a worse shooter, it's that he wouldn't get the open looks that he can create now. Kenny Smith is a much better athlete than Curry. Kenny was runner up in the NBA slam dunk competition, he was athletic. Kenny was only effective when he stood outside and waited for Hakeem to draw double teams and kick it out. When he wasn't playing with Hakeem, then Smith struggled. As I've pointed out multiple times, I'm not saying that Curry couldn't play in the league in prior eras. He's too good of a shooter. Shooters can always find a place. What he wouldn't be able to create all of the shots that he can under the current rules. Rodman was strong enough and smart enough to defend elite offensive players who were much bigger than him. Though he sometimes bent the rules, he was very effective. I would agree that Draymond would be able to play in the earlier days but he would likely be a defensive specialist. Neither he nor Rodman were good offensiive players. Green isn't the elite rebounder that Rodman was but he is a very good man and team defender. What Green wouldn't be doing is facilitating from out top. Those rules favored inside out play so he'd have to spend more time down low and less time on the perimeter.
I don't believe that I've ever advocated doing that in todays game. The entire discussion has been based on the old rules. Things that were legal then and impeded offense are no longer legal. That's the whole point.
How'd we get "hip checks" into the conversation? Who advocated hip checking as an effective defense? Did you misread the "hand check" references as "hip check"?
There is something very different about this year's Harden's mentality. It seems as though he has a little more sense of urgency when we are down (something I think he is learning from CP3). It's exciting to see his skill and mentality improvement
I'm saying that's not the driving factor behind what we are seeing - it's a minor impact not the major 9 feet is high, that means a lot of his rebounds are coming at a fairly long distance. And you have to split defensive and offensive up. Naturally most short rebounds are going to go to defensive bigs on avg in any era. But yes, more 3 point shots is going to result in longer rebounds. This is basic physics here. And you only have to play basketball casually to understand this. Take a 2 foot shot - the ball isn't going to travel far if you miss. Take a 25 foot shot - it's going to travel a lot further because it has a lot more energy. If you miss a 3 point shot it is going to come out with lots of energy. That's why it's long jumpers that will go over the backboard. If it's really short yeah it won't travel far. Or if it carroms of the backboard it might not travel so far. But a lot will. Def 3 sec is a key part of it yes. I mean it's what opens up the driving lanes as you can't have a mount mutombo camping out there so yeah that has some impact. But the real reason is that when you have guys who can shoot from long distance, you can't leave them unguarded. One of the big reasons the Rockets had problems with Seattle was that Perkins could hit threes and would pull Hakeem out. Imagine if there was no Shawn Kemp and instead they had Curry out there. You are going to pull Hakeem out of the paint on that or leave someone wide open - that's the whole point of small ball. And with Hakeem scrambling you get another effect - he's not going to be set as often so when players do drive they are more likely to draw contact and get him in foul trouble. How much so? It's up for debate, obviously Hakeem was special - but even he had foul trouble issues until much later in his career. And why Green isn't a great 3 point shooter, he's a gifted passer and highly intelligent player. He is going to have to be guarded so with the 3 seconds rule if Green stands 10 feet out near the baseline Hakeem is going to be put in a position where if someone drives and Hakeem steps up to take the driver, Green can cut to the basket for an easy dunk. This is infact what Harden and Capela do to other opposing defenses. And if you try to stop that with two bigs now you have 4 perimeter players who can shoot with only 3 defenders. No you're missing the point. Arm bars have only ever been legal when you show your back and curry doesn't play that way. Hand checking isn't suppose to actually impede a player and most of the time it doesn't but they got away with it at times. The point of hand checking was to make it easier to follow a player through a screen. But with handchecks Curry would just sweep his arms under the check for a foul. That's what Harden does - these guys are so quick now you can't hand check someone in the modern era. They would easily catch you for a foul. Plus they are more explosively quick today - if you got that close to someone they'd blow right around you. A hand check isn't going to stop them. Hand checks work on weak slow players like Kenny Smith. but they didn't stop guys like Sam Cassell from getting to the cup. look at Allen Iverson - did hand checking stop him from getting to the hole???? He wasn't strong and definitely not tall, and get got an MVP in the hand checking era! And you think Curry couldn't do the same thing?? The Kenny Smith that won the dunk contest was not the Kenny Smith that was on the Rockets. Rockets Kenny Smith was older and slower - and I wouldn't say a much better athlete than Curry. I bet Curry covers 2-3 times more distance in a game than Smith. I bet Curry has a far better top speed as well. You got to be kidding me. Hakeem owned Rodman. Big strong players would bowl Rodman over. Rodman was a great defender, a brilliant defender - but not because he was strong enough to stop guys who were incredibly muscular. He wasn't known for his post defense - it was good but not great. He was known to push post players put a bit before they got the ball. He knew how to bother them and make them uncomfortable. But one on one he didn't stop Shaq, it was he delayed Shaq just enough for help to come. But when it didn't he got beat. So yes on smarts but no on strong. Rodman was smart - he didn't get rebounds by out jumping people - he knew he couldn't grab it, so he tipped it away from them. He could get a finger on it before they could grab it because he would jump too early - he had no chance of securing it - but he wasn't trying to secure it, his aim was to tip and that's why he was so good.
The quote from the celtics post game about the hate that he is receiving and him shrugging it off and it wont prevent him from being the dog that he is, that alone assured me that harden has really matured and he is true leader, love that quote
Apologies in advance for the long reply. It actually exceeds the max length for a reply so I've split it in two.. 8 .9 is the longest average and that's an exception. The vast majority of the rebounding leaders have an average under 5 feet. The league leader is at 4.0. You wantt to consider offensive rebounds? Ok, they're pretty much the same. Of all guys that average at least 2 offensive rebounds per game, Ben Simmons has the longest avg rebounding distance and it's 8.1 ft. So, it's actually less than the high for a defensive rebounder. Ok, realistically, how many shots bounce over the backboard every game? That just doesn't happen that often. Again your taking an exception and pretending that its the norm. That's not the case. :Guys are good enough shooters nowdays that they aren't missing that badly most of the tiime. You're absolutely right that a long shot has more energy but you also need to realize that even though the ball can be coming off the rim faster, NBA players are playing way above the rim and still able to pull the rebound in. Here's two articles that analyze rebounding distance vs shot distance. The result is that there isn't really a correlation. To quote the Grantland article: "The apples don’t fall far from the tree. Last year, almost 80 percent of all NBA rebounds happened within eight feet of the hoop. It’s also worth noting that rebounds, overall, exhibit a very symmetrical spatial signature around the basket." "even the longest misses produce an average rebound distance that is only eight feet from the rim — not exactly a remote location." http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/ https://sites.northwestern.edu/nusp...do-longer-shot-attempts-mean-longer-rebounds/ Can you show me a study that says differrently? Stop right there. We're discussing how todays players would perform under the old rules. There was no defensive 3 seconds under the old rules Why do you keep qualifying everything with defensive 3 seconds? It's not applicable to the old rules that we are discussing. As for Perkins, he didn't pull Olajuwon out of the paint. The Rockets typically started Olajuwon on Perkins and Hakeem wouldn't follow him to the perimeter. If Perkins happened to be hitting 3s that day then Olajuwon would switch to guarding Kemp. He didn't go guard out at the 3 point line.. GS always has a non shooter on the floor. Either Draymond, Looney or Iggy are usually out there. They can't force a big out to the perimeter if they're guarding those guys under the old rules. You're basing your argument on modern rules rather than the rules that were in place back then. Teams can't create spacing like they do now because defenders can grab and hold. Likewise, there wouldn't be the constant drives to the basket because your defender can impede your movement. All you have to do is to look at last years WCF. Goldern State had major offensive issue just because Houston switched everything and didn't leave guys open. That's exactly what would happen under the old rules. The major difference though is that not only wouldn't the Warrior Shooters be open, they'd also be held and bumped around. Huge difference. If GSW has that much trouble with just switching everything, think how handchacking and allowing contact by the defender would change the game. Again you're assuming a 3 second rule. It didn't exist under the old rules. Also, as I said already, you wouldn't see the constant drives that occur today. Steph Curry isn't going to beat anyone off the dribble if they can manhandle him. Defenders being able to make contact with their man is the great equalizer. Every thing that you 're describing is based on a guy like Curry penetrating, drawing a double and kicking out to an open man. Under the old rules, he's not going to get those drives and he's not going to draw a double. That's the whole point. Because they could rough up their man an impede his progress, they didn't need double team help. Not sure how much you watched NBA of that era, but if your stategy is to get the ball to Draymond Green and hope that he can dunk on Hakeem then you're not going to be very successful.
