Wow, a video of stat inflation that doesn't adequately address Wildly longer MPG in the 60s. Wildly faster Pace. lulz at BOS having a 130 pace the reason for that being NBA didn’t play defense back then And yet another video that fails to include the rule change that eradicated illegal defense rules, and allowed Pops to throw 2 types of zones at Harden on Saturday, plus an "illegal" man D loading the lane and strong side. He had 3 men "illegally" strong-side v Lebron in the 2013 and 2014 finals, too. When ppl point to rules changes (or same rules -- palming, traveling -- but applied differently) to compare offensive players, what's wrong with also just admitting players are better. You can still make the point of comparing stats across eras is not fair. I mean, baseball fans have no problem saying baseball players are flat out better now. Football and soccer don't have that problem either. NBA defenders and defenses are wildly better now. Videos like this never talk about the pool of players improving. They just focus on how rules make it easier now. sigh For once, I want to see someone do a video on the evolution of the 3&D player and how they stole the jobs from superior shooters who do nothing else. And maybe an NBA2K simulation of Beverley stealing the ball from Cousy everytime down the court, until the user sends Cousy back to Training Camp Mode to learn how to dribble like Stockton.
Fair points. But sports with both offense and defense (unlike track and field, for example) should theoretically cancel the "evolution" of physical and tactical advancement. We all know that athletes are getting stronger, faster, more knowledgeable, better coached, better trained, better treated medically, etc. There shouldn't even be any argument for that. If offensive players are better, defensive players should be too.
I also edited my post to include video maker was disingenious in making point about Pace. Celtics had a 130 pace in the 60s. 80s had comparable Pace, too. MPG were out of control in 60s as well, probably because no one played defense.
Yeah, that's the point I made. These videos about the NBA try to say rules changes are the primary reason you can't compare across ERAs. I mean, fine, but it is also because they didn't play defense nearly as well back in the 60s (evident in wildly higher MPGs and Pace then), nor did they have the freedom within the rules to do so. Again, this is my point. The eradication of illegal defenses, followed by tactical advancement and evolution of defenses, recruiting/development of players (greater emphasis on 3&D v no-D pure shooters) is very interesting video topic that we just don't get. I mean, I'll go so far to say that the evolution of Stretch 4s/5s and Spacing Concepts trailed behind -- but was driven by -- the eariler evolution of the 3&D player followed by freedom of defense rules changes. Spacing concepts was required to balance out the evolution of defenses. I've been saying this for years, and looking for documentaries/vids how defenses drove the Spacing era — in a sink or swim manner. That's a fascinating Topic to me. Yet we get these rules changes thingies about how offense is easier now. No, the evolution of defenses has a balancing effect, too.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. Differences in minutes and pace were clearly mentioned. He had a chart showing a peak in pace in the 60s at the 5 minute mark, didn’t he?
This theory is wrong. NBA players are physically better at making baskets now, if guarded or unguarded. When FG% was lower it wasn't just because of defense or rules, it was because the players weren't as good at putting the ball through the hoop. The 10 foot rim has been a constant, and players have gotten better at throwing the ball through it just like runners have gotten faster, jumpers jump higher, and lifters lift more.
There are 11 different players this season who have scored 50 points. I think that’s a record. I think for stats comparisons the approach proposed in the video of normalizing the numbers relative to league averages makes a lot of sense. I used to do that for fun to translate stats for historical players into contemporary times. The video mentions changes in how traveling is called, the three point shot, and changes in timeshand check rules. Its easy to see how these things can skew stats. What were the other rule changes that had an observable effect on the stats? Removal of illegal defense would be interesting to look at. Certainly the change in the resetting of the shot clock and the 10-second violation helped increase the pace.
Yep. Whenever rule change is mentioned, it's always the hand check rule. The abolishment of illegal defense rule is more than enough to compensate for it. I do think the point about supination in the video is also something few people talk about. Today's fans often laugh at how awkwardly those old players dribbled. But that's because they were not allowed to palm the ball like today's players.
Your point would be true if Free Throw shooting improved through the years. I did say that theoretically offensive skills and defensive skills should evolve together and thus cancel each other's effect. But maybe physical abilities aid offense more than defense. That's another topic that's worth exploring.
Not a rule change. But the advancement of analytics and video scouting technology should have some effect. The proliferation of the 3-point shot is the result of analytics. In order to "normalize" it, you would have to extend the distance of the 3pt line to where a 3pt shot's efficiency was equal to a 2pt shot.
That's a weak sauce counterpoint My point *is* true because 3 point shooting has improved dramatically the years. Look at the three point contest for a perfect example of controlled conditions - the average number of shots per round has gone up over time. But even in-game play is now dramatically better (and it's not because previous defenders were defending it more heavily - it was the opposite if anything) The league leader in ft shooting has hovered around 90%, give or take a few percents, by the year 1950. This hasn't changed much in the intervening 70 years. According to the data you cant really get too much higher than 90%, it seems like it's the limit of human performance or close to it. I'm sure the league average has fluctuated but theres a lot more noise there due to a different mix of players each season. The early 3 point leaders meanwhile were shooting in the 30's if you go back to the ABA, and now go close to 50% now on higher volume - like 300% more volume - not counting the 3 years with the shorter line in the mid 90's which were an obvious anomaly in the trend line. You can say "well defense must be weaker" but there is no evidence of this being true, and a lot of evidence pointing the other way. It still boggles my mind that there are people out there who think that as participation in basketball has risen exponentially and the curve for performance has been pushed upward, like it has in every single other field of human endeavor, it somehow represents the exception rather than the rule and it mythically peaked 40 years ago. People run faster. Jump higher. Swim faster. Skate faster. Do more flips on a balance beam Basketball players play basketball better. It's just life.
Players practice 3-point shooting more, and offenses are designed to generate good 3-point looks more often. That explains the increase. Shooting is less about athletic ability (for which there has been an obvious, observable increase) and more about hand-eye coordination and mental concentration (much more stable over time). If you look at the shooting in the 3-point contest, shooting percentages have trended upward in general, but its not at all a sharp increase. The record for most consecutive shots hit in the 3-point contest still belongs to Craig Hodges, who I believe did it in the first round of the very first contest. Yes, basketball players today have more athletic ability and more refined skill at playing basketball. I think that's pretty clear. However, the NBA has also modified the rules to accentuate players' ability to showcase their athletic ability and skill. For obvious reasons -- it makes the game a more exciting product to watch.
This is a tautology. Yes, players are better on offense, because they practice better forms of offense, and the players themselves are the product of a much larger talent pool, both absolutely and relatively. This is the same for every sport, with the exception of those with declining participation.
Sam, I don't know what you are trying to argue. Nobody is disputing that today's players are "better" in the sense that if you put them in a time machine to play in the 60s with TODAY'S RULES, they would kill. The question is this. Is it fair to compare the achievements of yesteryear's players to today's players? It's like saying, was Napoleon really a military genius when he didn't even know how to use an AK47?
The only way to compare players from different eras is to assess their performance relative to league average. A stat like PER does this. But even with that, the NBA is incentivized to enhance the ability of offensive star players to score and create offense via rule changes. Consequentially, we see that more and more players are putting up “historic” numbers (even in relative terms). It would be interesting to plot the average PER of the top 10 players each year. I bet there would be a clear upward trend.
If guys are really forced to compare players of old and today's players we would very likely have to imagine them with the points you mentioned, better treatment, better practice, better coaching, more knowledge, strengthening and track n field exercises. You would have to imagine those players of another era in today's environment.
I don’t think so. The comparison would only be how effective the player was in their respective league. Imagining what the player would do if born in a different year is, I think, a futile exercise. It’s just impossible to project that. The comparison is limited by the fact that differences in league rules results in elevation of certain types of players over others. So, in one era a center may the advatange, and inanother a guard may have the advantage.
It is without a doubt the biggest one....combined with the all levels recruiting and developing better defenders (3&D as an example) and teach them how to shoot. Europe lagged way behind the NBA on this. But forget about discusses the effects of Illegal D rule changes: my point was simply the entire video ignores it. A great beauty of NBA history is the tactical advancements in defense and evolution of who plays based on defensive skills. We never see videos of that, and it would add to this discussion. Sorry, missed that....because it was after his ads and promotion segment, when I started fast-forwarding looking for illegal defense talk. After setting the tone of rules changes, he could (I would) mention how those wild MPG and Pace numbers in the 60s were a clear sign of bad defenses, vs today’s defenses. That’s the videos highlights I’d show...how bad those defenses were, even despite it being much easier to strip a dribbler back then. See, this is my point of videos like this: despite me interjecting right away about Illegal Defense, and you somewhat acknowledging it earlier, you return to not mentioning it, as if the only thing that has happened is offense has been made easier. Again, I’m not interrested anymore in debating what effects what more, I just find defensive evolution of the sport to be the most exciting thing to me. I love defense, and the evolution of what’s been happening over last 18 years is exciting, and the ppl who pushed for the change by saying it would make offenses adjust with more exciting play were correct. There’s a story here that they predicted: The evolution of recruiting and developing 3&D players (which started before Illegal defense eradication) to replace the better pure shooters followed by tactical advancement allowed by more freedom of movement on defense drove the need to create spacing and move the ball. That story isn’t told. Instead it seems everyone is more interested in settling debates about Oscar v MJ v Kobe v Lebron v Harden, etc. If you’re interested in NBA history, the evolution of defense is a must story. Not to win arguments of statistics, but to help elevate the discussion. No other sport has such limited discussions of defensive schemes and tactics as NBA, imo. Anecdotes like the Bad Boys are used to say defenses have devolved. That’s just weird to me. I don’t know. Point is: I prefer more balanced historical discussions. And the NBA does not have that. Cheers
