While the rule changes have allowed for more scoring and less defense, it has also allowed for players to drive into the lane with ease and create havoc, making less talented players seem greater than they are. When we debate about players from different era's we will have to constantly take into consideration how they have benefitted or been victimised by the rules of the era and i think this is unfortunate because we will never be able to truly gauge how great a player is/was. I keep hearing about how players like Parker and Nash are great penetrators but its easy to penetrate when you can't be touched. Yet big men get slaughtered under the basket. Isiah Thomas--now that was a penetrator, imagine the damage he would inflict in today's league. The NBA needs to go back to real basketball, make a few adjustments but nothing that can make a major impact on the game. These rules are enhancing players stats, making it hard to rate a players ability. Then we will really see who the great players are. I think there'd be some players who won't be as effective as they currently are. Imagine what Michael Jordan would do without hand-checking. These players today should consider themselves very lucky.
What do you define as real basketball? Is the 3pt line part of real basketball? Why do you get to designate what "real" basketball is as whatever era you liked? The rules have changed since the beginning of the sport. Less talented? Hardly. They simply have different skill sets. For the big men of the past to be successful, the NBA had to restrict the kinds of defenses that could be played on them. That isn't my definition of "superior talent". Imagine what Olajuwon would have been without the artificial concept of illegal defenses helping him out? He should consider himself lucky.
........Ok, this wasn't an attack on the players today. I'm simply saying that the constant rule changes make it harder to gauge players against each other because their "Skill sets" however one dimensional become enhanced instead of being truly tested. And you can't tell me that Steve Nash would have been a two time MVP if he played in the 80's, and we could only imagine how many points MJ could have averaged if he was allowed to drive into the lane untouched. The concept of real basketball has become so blurry over the past decade because the league simply changes the rules of the game when it wants, i'd like to see some consistency. To be honest, yeah i liked it when the league was more physical. Players like Dirk wouldn't get away with everything they do. I never liked intense bruise ball Miami/NY style. But you can't even breath on some players today. Bringing back some toughness would sort out the elite players. Hakeem was an intelligent and talented player, i think he could have made do if the league tried to make things more difficult, as long as the rules benefit EVERYBODY then it's ok. Everything is so one sided now and it makes it unfair. Centers still had to fight through double/triple teams back in Hakeems day, but its unfair that Centers today still cop abuse while guards and small forwards can't even be breathed on. It's almost as if there are two sets of rules out there, and God help you if you're a Big Man because the flopping, hacking, and no-calls make it extremely difficult for a player to succeed. f****n' eye rolling, hate that s**t. Just bringing up a valid point.
You make a good point. I agree the NBA is too ticky-tacky on the perimeter and too brutal inside. They need to tweak it some and make it more balanced. One thing I completely agree with is the crackdown on hand checking. But it isn't fair that once players like AI (and other penetrators today) get to the lane it's a foul if they get breathed on. This is crazy. If you don't call it when Yao or Shaq gets fouled inside don't call it when AI or Kobe get handslapped either! Let the handslap go but call the armslap or armgrab or whatever. Just be consistent! Pleeeeease!!!! Dirk has this figured out, which is why his playoff 3 pt attemps are way down and his driving to the basket is way up. He's treated like a perimeter player. If Tracy takes advantage of this next year he will be completely unstoppable.
OK, but Harper also got inside Kenny's head, stuck his hand in Kenny's chest and ripped out his heart, which is why Sam was so essential. During one of the games, Sam actually got inside Harper's head and got him so mad Riley had to take him out for a few minutes. Nobody could out-talk Sam even when he was a rookie.
It's funny how people talk about "real basketball." "Real basketball" is just whatever brand of basketball they prefer. It is just a matter of taste. Some people like physical kind, low post big men matches. Some people like run and gun kind. Rules keep changing to favor certain skill sets. I my opinion, truly great players will find ways to dominate no matter what the rules are. If zone was allowed in Olajuwon's time, he would still dominate. But instead of doing Dream Shake down low, he would probably developed a deadly midrange jumper and beat the defense by *gasp* dribble penetration. Shaq would still dominate if charging calls were made on him like on other players. He would develop some quick moves to the basket rather than bulldoze his way. Only one dimensional players' successes are dictated by rules.
Even if the rules never changed, I doubt you could validly compare players between eras. The competition changes, and it is easier to look good when the competition is worse. Most people, it seems, would say that the level of competition has gone down over time, with the dilution of talent that comes from league expansion. I would say the competition has gotten harder over time as the league has matured. Either way, it is a changing landscape that makes it impossible to really compare Pistol Pete to Wade, or whatever it is you'd want to do.
I can't think of any way that the NBA restricted defense on big men, off the top of my head. Zone was never allowed in the NBA at all, to my knowledge. Making the paint smaller hurts big men. Not sure when the 3-second rule was invented, but that hurts them as well.
Maybe nowadays people consider the perimeter players a bunch of sissies and the post player real men, and thus current rules to balance it out?
The NBA didn't allow two people to guard a big man who didn't have the ball (illegal defense). That's not a basketball rule - that's something that's NBA-specific. Remember Olajuwon's struggles against Seattle? That came because they ran a borderline illegal defense making it difficult for him to get the ball. It's an artificial NBA rule restricting who and when a big man could be guarded. Once that was taken away and people had the freedom to guard who they wanted to, you've seen players be able to more creatively defend a big man (like Yao faces). Nothing wrong with the old setup, but it's not any more "real basketball" than what we see today. "Real basketball" didn't have a 3 point line, either. Like someone said above, that term is used way too much to justify whatever rules people prefer. But it's not any more or less legitimate than basketball in any other era.
In practice, that's the way it worked out but the actual rule was far more complicated, IIRC it had something to do with the zones on the free throw lane and not having two players in them at the same time for more than (5?) seconds if nobody had the ball - apparently officials had a hard time with it.
But that wasn't specific to big men. You couldn't guard ANYONE without the ball. The league has always forced man-to-man, as far as I know, until recently.
I agree with Major. The game is constantly evolving. Little guys have an advantage now, and I think 10 years ago big guys had an advantage. BTW, is it such a bad thing that perimeter players are now forced to play defensive with their feet instead of their hands? That's the major difference in officiating in the past few years compared to earlier. I don't think they're calling fouls in the paint more readily against guards than they have in the past.
The rules now aren't specific to anyone either. It's just that they impact guards more because they are the ones driving. Similarly, the old rules impacted big men more because they were the ones posting up.
Making the paint smaller HELPS not hurts big men. A small 3-second zone means the big man can post up closer to the basket. That's why International basketball has very few dominating big men. Both the illegal defense rule and the small paint are NBA specific in order to enhance a big men's game.
I think it had more to due with it confusing Hakeem and him not being used to it. Barkley (big man) was fine against Seattle. Duncan and (a very aging shell of a) Shaq have had their moments of havoc this playoffs. When Yao can hold his position and know how to use his size like these guys he will be a consistent force no matter what the defense.
Although it hurts the big men defensively. If Hakeem was allowed to freely roam the paint it would have made his defense even more devastating--I have no doubt he would be cleaning up most of the drives by guys like Lebron and Wade. Also, the illegal defense IMO is aimed for both helping your better offensive low post and perimeter players. It keeps box and 1's from guys like Wade, Lebron, Kobe, Nash, etc, and makes where the double all that more predictable. If anything the illegal defense hurt Hakeem more than helped him because for every thing it helped him offensively it kept him from totally shutting down all penetration defensively. Whereas someone like Jordan--great individual man defender and of course unbeliveable 1 on 1 offensive player, the illegal defense really enhanced most all elements of his game and took away almost nothing. IMO the league has almost always errored on the side of helping little guys versus the goliaths (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, etc) with the rules and still does.
