Who said anything about playing zone defenses? NBA is much more sophisticated than college defenses. NBA hardly ever plays zone. We are talking about defenses that no longer have to worry about illegal defenses, and can do anything they want. What they do against WB and Harden in ISO is put a man behind the primary defender. In PnR, they shade a 3rd defender behind the primary two. They are shifting the help defense closer to the ball handler. All that was illegal before. Bodying up and making contact is very minor compared to an actual help defender who is unfettered by rules requirement them to be within guarding distance of someone. Now they can be anywhere. That clogs the lane and stops drives more than anything else. You don't seem to appreciate what NBA defenses are doing now. I can explain the scoring numbers, too. And remember, the '90s was the era of the best centers and rim protectors in the history of the game, by far.
Love Curry's game. He's like Roger Bannister breaking the 4-minute barrier. There WILL be a next generation of shooters that eventually push the boundary past him. But he's showing what's possible and changing the conversation regarding limits. And that's spectacular.
Why would NBA do something like this when the business of basketball is thriving under current rules? It's not like there are tons of fans out there ready to tune into the NBA only if there are more 1990s era Knicks vs. Heat games that end up with two fistfights between Alonzo Mourning and Charles Oakley and a final score of 81-78 in overtime.
Because night-in/night-out, there's a ton of bad defense being played. This "era" features teams that go from being an upper echelon defense, numbers-wise, to an absolute joke in just one year. There are very few teams that commit to playing the type of defense you're describing every second of every game... And they just happen to be the best teams in the league (which is why I've always vouched for bringing back a defensive-minded coach, who can demand max effort... And then get your offense primarily based off transition and ball movement). And in the end, this would be a "golden age" of defense if you were allowed to do more than breathe on a player on the perimeter. It's a HUGE reason why offensive numbers have continued to trend up, and why the NBA makes any/all perimeter defense a point of emphasis every year since they enforced the ticky-tack stuff. Along with the fact you were actually allowed to make contact with perimeter players.
What I've seen when refs don't call ticky-tack perimeter stuff, and do allow contact on the perimeter, is that Curry tends to have to work harder to get his shots off and points. We saw this in the NBA finals, with Curry only able to score above 30 once (along with one of the worst games of his career... Which prompted plenty of complaints from Kerr regarding how the game was being called). Now, in a 7 game series... Perhaps that's not enough time to adjust fully, so maybe if Curry is being bodied up and the refs aren't calling every perimeter contact a foul over an entire season, he eventually makes the necessary adjustments to continue to play at this break-neck pace. I just don't see it... Which doesn't mean Curry wouldn't still be one of the better players of that era... It's just the inherent nature of why the NBA was forced to start making these touch fouls mandated (perimeter play suffered).
I dont know where I stand on the overall changes since the 90's, but hand-checking would slow Steph down. As great a shooter he is, defenders still have to play off him because otherwise he is quick enough to blow right by them. Giving perimeter defenders another tool to slow him down allows them to play closer on him and effect more shots. He is still a great shooter. In terms of physicality i agree that he would have a tougher time under rules that allow more physical play. The dude is built pretty slightly and I don't think he can take a whole seasons' punishment of hard fouls and bumps that nowadays are called flagrants or called where in the past they would have been let go.
If the 90's was such a defensive golden age, then why was it also the era of the iso scorer, of one man taking on the defense on its own? Due to illegal defense, teams could easily orchestrate a clear out and leave a defender alone on an island (hence the term "isolation"). Why is it that the ppg of scorers have been on a downtrend ever since the removal of illegal defense when they should instead have been scoring at a higher clip due to being unimpeded by handchecking? And remember, back in the days of illegal defense, those imposing hall of fame centers could not just remain stationed in the paint as you were not allowed to defend empty space. Beat your marker and the path to the basket was clear. If Curry was actually playing in the 90s, he would be isoed 35 feet from the basket with his defender left alone on an island against the greatest shooter of all time with super handles, a mean first step and no help coming whatsoever.
Nick, even though you have been destroyed on statistics, perhaps my view as grognard will help you. The league was SLOW. Players were gassed when playing high intensity much faster. Let's turn this one around: MJ was the greatest player I ever saw. I also think transplanting 90 Jordan into the now, he would not be able to be as good as he was in the current league. 1. Speed has gone up 2. Iso ball has been shown to be a loosing strategy. 3. Players have much more stamina (as that's more important than bulk nowadays) 4. Statistics indicate defenses also have become stronger (not weaker!) I know people (Caesar^^) will now be frothing at the mouth, but he knows as we all do speed has gone up and that this makes a tremendous difference. It's more skillbased and fast paced nowadays with much more skillbased players compared to the 1990 goons some teams were fielding.Would Jordan adapt? Of course, he's a talent we see once a generation. He would be a different player. But looking at his scores and then adding 5-10 more points just because "offense is so much easier nowadays" is absurd.
I believe it would be easier to adapt to the occasional zone-ish defense, but easier perimeter defense/more foul calls/more small ball/less contact/more flagrants/more turnovers than it would for offensive effiency to remain the same under the way refs previously called contact on the perimeter. Hence why the NBA literally had to change the way the game was called to get scoring back. Hell, we saw teams having to adjust when refs swallow their whistles in the post-season, and scoring does go down (and the game slows down as well). Kerr was dumbfounded as to why the refs decided to call the game differently in the NBA finals, with his team getting held below 100. Not buying anything you wrote about stamina or overall speed. Humans haven't evolved to have more stamina in just 10-20 years, and the game was very much up and down (fast) in the 80's even with plenty of contact allowed.
I also think transplanting 90 Jordan into the now, he would not be able to be as good as he was in the current league. What.
Usually the debate features questions about whether stars of this era could make it in other eras (see other thread)... but this is now the second example of somebody saying that stars of other eras won't make it in this era (in addition to players having more stamina now, player being faster now, etc.). That's a far bigger leap, and just as bad a fallacy as those who believe the past is always better. There are several who believe the present is always going to feature the biggest/fastest/strongest/bestest... and that may be true at certain times, but this is definitely not one of those times.
if jordan was playing in this era. it would not be watchable basketball. he'd probably spent the entire day at the line. 34 pts on 1 fg attempt.
This is pointless because it ignores the single biggest factor in scoring being up: Pace. I posted it before, I will post it again: The Bad Boy Pistons were mediocre defenders by today's standards.
How come the very best team of " the Golden Age" with all of the helpful rule changes, is about as good at defense as the best teams of the EZ Pass offense era? Team A: PTS/G: 98.5 (21st of 27) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 91.5 (1st of 27) SRS: 6.48 (2nd of 27) ▪ Pace: 92.8 (24th of 27) Off Rtg: 105.7 (16th of 27) ▪ Def Rtg: 98.2 (1st of 27) Team B: PTS/G: 105.0 (6th of 30) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 92.5 (1st of 30) SRS: 11.21 (1st of 30) ▪ Pace: 94.4 (22nd of 30) Off Rtg: 111.2 (3rd of 30) ▪ Def Rtg: 97.9 (1st of 30) Expected W-L: 51-8 (1st of 30) Spoiler team A is hte 1994 Knicks, team B is the 2016 Spurs League Average Defensive rating in 2016 - 105.9 League Average Defensive rating in 1994 106.3 /thread
How many more "biggest" factors are you going to come up with? Again, simply ignore the fact that refs consciously prevent increased physical play, which both slows down pace and lowers scoring, by continuing to call ticky-tack fouls. Its no wonder that pace and scoring go down in the playoffs when refs tend to let them play more... perhaps the NBA will try to change those rules too.
Never said there weren't any good defensive teams today.... my second paragraph emphasizes that the very best defensive teams of today also happen to be the very best teams in the league, and I wish Morey would recognize that and over-commit to improving that aspect of the team. However, unless you have a team that has the perfect mix of elite individual defenders like Leonard/Thompson/Green, combined with the ultimate coach/team approach to defense, its still hard to get that sort of effective/stifiling defense in today's game night-in/night-out thanks to the NBA's aversion to physical contact.
Obviously it's not that hard because the average team today, that doesn't have those players is better on defense than the same average team in the 1990's. This is not just "ultimate teams" - it's true across the board. League Average Defensive rating in 2016 - 105.9 League Average Defensive rating in 1994 - 106.3 Those 90's players must have really sucked ass at defense; they had all the rules rigged in their favor and they can't even do better than today. What a bunch of scrubs.
Referees actually call more fouls in playoff games, not fewer. Pace and scoring go down in the playoffs for two reasons: better defenses on average and teams gameplanning more thoroughly for single teams since they're facing them 4-7 times in a row. It's interesting that when hand-checking was outlawed (which is a good proxy also for when the "bodying" type of physicality was no longer allowed, since that's when the NBA was cleaning up that style of defense, hand-checking was just the big-name change), the very same players who were supposedly being limited by it the year before didn't see their offensive numbers rise at all. Some interesting quotes about the removal of illegal defense: "You put in zone, you take away stars.” --Steve Smith “I think it’s a huge mistake. There’s not going to be anybody able to drive. With these rules, you’re going to be back to the 70s in scoring … Fans like to see Vince Carter play one-on-one outside. That stuff is going to be history. Isolation basketball has been part of the game ever since I’ve been in it." --Pat Riley "It would change the sport. We should create a situation where great players get a chance to excel. Zones neutralize athletic ability. People want to see guys who can soar to the basket … People will be coming up with all kinds of crazy defenses." --Rudy Tomjanovich
League Defensive ratings really started to take off from 99 to the early 00's - the Shaq/Iverson era. Then they had both zones AND hand checking. Generally also remembered as a horrible era of NBA basketball. It's funny because other than Shaq, none of the "talking heads" talking about how great and better things were back in the old days - refers to htis period. It's always the 1990's that they talk about. Nobody wants to bring the early 00's back - that was a defense-iso plodding era, and frankly a weak few years in the league overall, when you had the Lakers beating on the Nets or the Sixers in the finals. Blech.
