The zone, 3 point line, and Shaq rules: 3 factors destroying American Basketball

I want to know if you ever played "street ball" before. I just don't like it when people use that term to critique American basketball...ESPECIALLY adding in the words "hacker's paradise". Street ball, most of the time, isn't what you watch on ESPN And1 tours. There's running and gunning and there's shooting..and if you play "street ball" you would know that if you want to stay on the court, you have to have a jumpshot. No one is going to let you dribble for days, drive in and dunk/lay the ball up. Good "street ball" teams have a mixture of both athleticism and shooting accuracy.

But I'll say this: The athleticism that can be seen in the LeBron James, the Amare Stoudamires, the Richard Jeffersons...it wasn't THEIR intention to be marketed and invited to represent their country. It's the marketers, the corporate personnel, the owners, the endorsers, and ultimately, the fans that want all that.

We always pine for the good ole days when shooting was hovering around 50% but if you look at it at a whole, athleticism and dunkfests sell. And the NBA is a business and they will cater and market according to what will generate money.

Hence, that's why the LeBron James and the Richard Jeffersons are considered to be in the "superstar" class. They grew up idolizing Dominique, MJ, and the like for all the wrong reasons. They tune in to the news or ESPN and see the dunks the dramatic plays but do not pay attention to their shooting because no tv network want to show clips of players just simply draining jumpshots. That's not exciting. So all they do is hone their skills on being an athletic monster because they know that if they can dunk from the free throw line, do 180 tomahawk jams, they too can be like Mike--in terms of endorsements and $$.

What am I trying to say? That maybe the NBA has lost the concept that basketball is a game. It's hard since they generate a lot of money annually on flashiness alone. International players don't have that luxury of millions of dollars, sippin on Cristal, and being on cribs. Basketball to them is still, for the most part, a game and a game that they love to play. They look back on tapes of Bird and Magic and tell themselves that's what works in the game of basketball. The media and the NBA is feeding the new generation things that sell--and not things that win. And that means sacrificing the lost art of having a jumping from even 6 ft out, having good lateral movement on defense, passing intellect/instincts, and the concept that winning takes 5 guys and not 1.

 

simply beautiful...
I truly enjoyed reading your post, you speak the truth...

 

Sounds like grumpy old men, complaining about how they miss the good ol' days.

The days when big men didn't run the floor, and were told to stay in the key.

The days when forwards were slow, set shooting stiffs who couldn't handle the ball.

The days when guards only dribbled in one direction and couldn't jump to save their lives.

The game has changed. They players have changed. You complain that the players have been unable to adapt to a different style of ball, but you're having the exact same problem.

 

The good ole' days when the US team could medal in the Olympics....

If Street Ball is the future of US basketball......ugh, I don't even want to think about it.

Go Hot Sauce Go!!

 

Hakeem, Kareem, Bird, McHale, Worthy, Magic, Michael, Clyde, and Stockton all played when the 3pt shot, which is killing basketball apparently, was part of basketball. If anything, guys like Michael, Hakeem, and Glide are responsible for the uber-athletes of today's NBA.

But before them? I'd rather have Shawn Marion, than George Yardley in his prime

Shaq or Dave Cowens? I'll take Shaquille

If a GM offered me Carmelo Anthony in exchange for Jim Pollard in his prime, I'd take Anthony.

You wanna talk '80s, I'd take Lamar Odom over Bobby Jones any day of the week, and I'm from Philly!

But what about you? Would you rather have Tracy McGrady or Dick McGuire? LeBron James or George McGinnis? Joe Johnson or Eddie Johnson?

Yardley, Cowens, Jones, McGuire, McGinnis, Eddie Johnson; all of those guys were fundamentally sound. But none of them, except possibly Cowens (a poor man's Tom Gugliotta), would make the starting lineup of any NBA roster.

 

first, a pet peeve :

Waaalaaa, /SB - Voila. Also, don't use the cliche "perfect storm". It's tired and doesn't add meaning.

Also, if Sane drops in - Sane, it's come on, not "common" . Two words.

Otherwise, nice article. I don't know if the Shaq phenom is where the shoving match version of the game started, but he's certainly the culmination of a trend. The Pistons played rough 20 years ago, much to the chagrin of Magic and Bird, who were used to being treated with kid gloves, and were allowed to bait their opponents into phantom fouls. Nevertheless, Detroit was a sound, smart team, not the mere thuggery that Riley took away and foisted on the league with the Knicks and Heat. Barkley and Malone would throw their weight around offensively, plainly cheating, before Shaq brought new dimension to bully ball. Shaq is just so big, it's all the more obvious. You know, I think the star system has promoted thuggery as much as anything. If you're going to get a foul anyway, might as well have a hulking thug deliver it. I think I'd prefer less phantom fouls and more amazing skills and finesse on display.

I like the 3 pointer. I don't like zone. I want to see more cutting, more excitement, more individual matchup without the need for phantom fouls to see the superior talent. College ball is boring. Four corners, weave, 45 seconds, chuck. Bleh. Sure, we do need the mid-range shot. It really does make the game more interesting. You'll get more mid-range without a zone. Stupid Coleangelo. I hate him and the rules committee.

Assuming they keep the stupid zone, I think you'd see better ball if they'd just let the game flow, instead of dictating the outcome. In spite of my not liking Shaq or Malone trucking over a hapless defender ( a disservice to the game and spectator value), I'd generally prefer less fouls. Minor contact should go, heavy contact should get heavy penalty. It's only common sense.

 

My pet peeve....fewer fouls, not less fouls. "Less" is a liquid measure while "fewer" is a unit measure. If one casts stones, one shouldn't live in a glass house.

 

The players are not fundamentally sound any longer.

Too many guys want to dunk instead of learn how to play a 5 on 5 game.

The international teams learn how to play the game, and until the USA gets a real TEAM together they will get their A$$es handed to them.

I see it at the YMCA every day.

You have a team of incredibly gifted athletes that are getting schooled by older guys who cut, set picks, roll to the hole and share the ball.

Just smart basketball versus stupid basketball.

Smart almost always wins.

DD

 

The reports of American Basketball's death have been greatly exaggerated.

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82438

A few points:

Teams started playing defensive basketball long before Shaq -- see the 90's knicks and their predecessors, the 80's Pistons.

The zone is an awful idea -- but they allow it in I-ball, so I don't see how having it in the NBA would hurt NBA players that much in I-ball, especially since it is seldom used.

That's not that much different than Puerto Rico's approach on Sunday.

would think the value of the midrange is even less given the smaller amount of space between the key and the 3 point line.

hyperbole.

We didn't replace anybody with SHaq, unfortunately.

Yeah, Virgin Islands pick up games are infamous for their sound fundamentals -- two handed set shots rule the day.

Kobe is counterexhibit 1A: He grew up in Europe with a father playing Euro ball -- yet he is the epitome of the athletic, one on one, "selfish" player.

That's what they do, in my opinion

FIBA rules are the way Naismith intended?

When Ginobili wins the MVP, I'll concede.

 

How did the zone kill basketball? It has always been legal in highschool and college. It is legal in international ball. If anything it is the opposite. The lack of a zone in the NBA has reduced the number of good shooters. It favors the athletic guys who can take it to the hoop. If you can pack in a zone to prevent easy inside shots, then the outside shot becomes more important. International players learn to shoot to bust the zone.

All the 3 point shot did was kill the intermediate jumper. Why take a 15 footer when a 21 footer will get you an extra point. I don't really think it hurt basketball. It opened up the packed in zones. The international players jack up more 3's than we do.

Shaq is just a symptom of two things wrong with the NBA. Bad officiating and star treatment. The argument is that too many foul calls will slow the game down and not be fun for the fans. And that the fans come to see the stars play. Both of those things favor Shaq. The are reluctant to foul him out and they do not want to call a lot of fouls.

The letting close fouls go thing was exploited 20 years ago with the bad boy pistons. They would foul constantly and it destroyed the rythm of the opponents.

The refs just need to start calling all the fouls and the teams will either adjust or lose, but the league has never seemed to figure that out. I remember games in the early 80's where teams would be down to 5 players because of foul trouble. That kind of thing never happens now.

If you want to blame one player on killing American basketball its Jordan. He was good enough to be a one man team. Everyone wanted to be like Mike. But Mike was a ball hog. Slowly but surely the team game left for the one on one game. Now guy just do not know how to pass and play team ball.

This turned out to be a long rant. But I have been playing ball for a long time and have seen the game go from the fun up and down ball movement days of the 80's to the slow grind it out crap of today. Frankly I like international ball more than the NBA.

 

i think the way the zone killed basketball--US basketball--is because the NBA were using man-to-man for so long. Before the zone, man-to-man was predominant. You had your defensive assignments and you're supposed to lock your opponent up. And if you locked him up, you were applauded for your hardnosed D. And if you were happen to let your opponent like you up like a doobie well....you get the picture.

and with the zone in place, i think players just get lazier. they think they only have to defend so much of the court that they don't care what happens after their opponent leaves it.

i do agree that the lack of zone has caused more man-to-man matchups and thus killing the art of outside shooting.

 

i love watching basketball games today, but they were so much better even 10 years ago, one word IMO that has been lost with alot of the young pllayers today, FUNDAMENTALS, everyone tries to do the flashy crossover, wat good is that, fundamentals will get u 2 points more consistantly then flashy stlye of play will. another thing is players egos, it has ruined the nba, players these days r so arrogant, they only want things my way, they more concerend abt the pay, than winning, and just playin ball, always finding excuses, but never look at themselves and say maybe i should adjust the way i play for the team, look at wat david robinson did for tim duncan, he gave up his spotlight, and in doing so they won 2 championships together, thats my opinon

 

Yes, fundamentals like capitalizing the "I"s and spelling out the "are"s, "you"s and "what"s.

 

jopatmc, I understand what you are saying. But a lot of what you are talking about are the symptoms and not the core problem.

We can change all the rules all we want; remove the zone, change the 3pt, Shaq (retire?). But it wont change the new players minds that are coming it. It's their choice of what they want to learn. If the NBA throws a lot of money at them and lures them to the NBA. Then, they will miss out on a lot of training they would get in the NCAA. That's just the way it is. We live in America where big contracts, image, and rep is king. If the "best" want to chase after that. Then, we can't stop them. It's a fee country.

But if we do have a great Protégé (like LeBron) that chooses to go the 3-4 year NCAA route, and then enters the NBA. Watch out! Because, imagine McGrady at North Carolina University for 3-4 years! He would be tearing up the league more so than he has ever done.

A extra ordinary talented player that choose skills/team development over money (later) would be a rare thing.

 

I totally agree with your rant. Well said.

 

Didn't Wilt Chamberlain sleep with 30,000 women?

That's who I blame for destroying the NBA. The new players wanted to be like Wilt. They sleep around with too many women having to prematurely retire (Magic), they are late for practice ("Practice; we're talking about practice"), and even the clean cut ones, with everything, let temptation make them "Obey Their Thirst" (Kobe).

I'm telling ya...it starts with Wilt. There's just way too many bad lower backs ending careers in this league for all that to be happening on the court. Oh, and he never fouled out in his entire career, talk about star treatment for a master of his domain.

 

Three things:

The Zone didn't kill basketball.

Who in the hell wants to see ISOs for 48 minutes?

These bastards just need to learn to can open shots.

 

Nice post, but how can you honestly say a foul is called a foul in international competition? Have you not been watching the games, and all the contact that players are getting away with?