permaximum wrote:
For the second, there are two realities.
1. Rule changes that directly affects TS% and scores of the games. Hand-checking alone has allowed offenses to penetrate easier and score on the rim freely along with boosted FT attempts. Increase in TS% should have been greater. Anyone that played basketball at any kind of level should have known it by now. So no, offenses are worse compared to 80s and 90s.
Surely, the new interpretation of the no-handchecking rule had an obvious effect for the offensive freedom of ball handling perimeter players, but I don't think that a bigger increase in TS% should have been expected. First of all, no-handchecking was actually introduced in 1994; in 2004 they added a clarification to it, because perimeter defenders would just simply use the forearm instead to try to reroute the ball handler; the basic intention of the rule in 1994 was actually to not allow such rerouting while the defenders found a way to circumvent it. We should also keep in mind that prior to 2004 (in 2001 to be more precise) the illegal defense was eliminated, the 3-second rule was introduced while the teams had no longer 10 seconds to advance the ball, but only 8. Those changes had at least a similar effect on the pace of the game, because essentially it should have forced teams to play faster in order to not run into set defenses. The rules made it easier for the defensive teams to use double or even triple teams against ball handlers, which should have been something the offensive team wants to avoid. It just happened that teams didn't adjust to that as quickly. A similar thing is seen after the changes made in 2004, where the average team only slightly increased the Pace. A bigger jump was noticed later; between the 2006 and 2007 season.
The offense today is different, but calling it worse or better is more based on personal prefererences. Someone might not like those long-range shots at that current frequency, but that is also a testament to an increased skill level in terms of shooting. Sure, there were players in the past also capable of shooting a long-range shot like Steph Curry can do that (like Vince Carter for example), but I urge everyone to look at the release. Curry is barely holding the ball in his hands before he lets it fly; he has such a quick release on those shots that the defense seems always be a bit late. Carter had a perfect form on those really long 3pt shots; they isn't a difference seen in his form, but he just doesn't have the quick release someone like Curry has. And such a thing is seen throughout the league; basically all players seem to have a quicker release. When you look at Jordan's famous 3pt game against the Blazers; look at how much space he got from the defender and look at how slow in comparison to today is his release. With todays defense, Jordan wouldn't have the time to get into shooting form, if he would have the ball that long on the perimeter in his hands. Or compare Nowitzki's release from yesterdays 40 pt game with his release just 3 years ago; he is using a quicker release, because he has to, otherwise the defender would have a better chance to reach the ball.
We could also look at the defensive schemes; for example Ice against side pick&roll wasn't a thing in the 90's or even before. It is much tougher to find a way to score or setup the offense, when the defender is forcing the ball handler away from the screen towards the baseline, because usually that zone is covered by another defender and an offense has to react quickly and decisive otherwise the likelihood for a stop will massively increase (that's how the Thibodeau Bulls were able to be such a constant strong defensive team despite not always having such agile defenders on the court). Such a scheme depends heavily on an understanding of the opponents offense as well as being able to react correctly. For the Bulls it worked best with Deng on the court, being able to cover the respective areas incredible well and making a extremely low amount of mistakes which helped the defensive rotation. No wonder the Bulls staff wasn't so happy when the Bulls FO traded him away.
The reaction of the better offensive teams today is pretty obvious more ball and player movement. Unlike the 90's for example, were a typical reaction to a p&r switch was a clear-out for 1on1 action, teams today need to have more players on the court at the same time, who are able to handle the ball, make a precise pass and be able to shoot from longer distances. The game in the 90's was way more often dictated by 8 players standing around and watching than in todays game. Even if we have a clear-out for an iso play, we have constantly defenders testing a possible double team; those defenders usually just make a step towards the ball handler and then quickly recover; basically testing out the ball handlers reaction to a possible double team. Basically a fake defense which can be as effective as a fake on offense. There wasn't such action in earlier years; at least not even close to the current frequency. It was simply not allowed due to the illegal defense rule. Yeah, there were some workarounds like the "Jordan rules" of the late 80's Pistons, but other than that it wasn't really a common action on defense.
Obviously, the rule changes had a profound effect on the general usefulness of bigs, who can't shoot from the outside. A back-to-basket game needs a couple of extra finesse steps today in order to be efficient with that. Sure, someone like prime Shaquille O'Neal would change the scenery again, because that guy wasn't just big and strong, but also incredible quick on his feet for his size and also extremely well skilled. And unlike Howard he had those big hands and didn't need "stickum". Such a player isn't in the league right now; the most skilled interior threat seems to be Cousins (who seems to have his own demons to fight); Towns for example attacks the offense further out already with faceup action, more like David Robinson. It is a different game also based on the personal as well as other rule changes, which made it in general tougher for interior players.
And if we put that all together, we see that saying that an even bigger increase in TS% should have been there, isn't really a realistic statement. Some player types got an easier life due to those rule changes, others had to deal with more obstacles.
permaximum wrote:
80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, 2001's Lakers, 2004's Pistons would sweep the floor with GSW.
I don't think that any team would sweep the floor with any top team out of any era. It obviously always depends on the rule set, but in general top teams were top teams, because they played basketball at a really high level.
I can see an argument for the mid to late 90's Bulls winning a series against those Warriors, because they would match up very well. They had the length and agility on the perimeter with Harper, Jordan and Pippen being able to stay with a ball handler as well as covering those shooters off the ball. They had Dennis Rodman being able to stay with Green. And with Kukoc they had a player being able to play that stretch PF as we see it today.
The early-2000 Lakers had Shaquille O'Neal; that would have forced the Warriors to change up their lineups. They couldn't use their killer lineup as often, because Shaq was always an easy target for the passer with his ability to catch passes even when those passes were clearly off. His ability to see the floor, palm the ball and make a pass to an open teammate would make it extremly difficult even for a smaller lineup trying to front and double/triple team him. Shaq was just a different animal. But the Lakers were not that well equiped with role players who could be used in different ways. They just don't have the versatility.
permaximum wrote:
Also don't forget that those old teams' playoff opponents were greater than today's teams.
Whatever "greater" means in that context ... you shouldn't mix up your personal belief with facts either.
permaximum wrote:
Anyhow you can't statistically compare those teams with today's teams because of significant rule changes in the game... Addition of 3-point line, changes in it's distance, continuation changes, carry changes, zone defense, hand-checking etc. There are just too many variables and adaptation periods for the teams and referees to control.
So, we can't compare them, but you know for sure that the old teams were "greater"? Sounds to me like a contradiction.
permaximum wrote:
It doesn't work my friend. The game is less competitive and less physical.
Less physical? Yes, that was the intention of the rule changes. Faster game, less stops, more action. Less competitive? I don't think so. Unless you can prove that today a lower amount of players/coaches is out there to win, saying it would be less competitive is a really subjective view on the matter. In fact, I argue that games like the Warriors @ Lakers show that if a team is not prepared to be competitive, no matter how good that team is in comparison to the other teams in the league, the team will lose big against one of the worst teams in the league. You are basically basing your argument here on the belief, that players would have less competitive spirit, but isn't it possible that this is just the environment forcing the players to show that spirit differently? Just looking at Durant and Westbrook being always on the edge in recent years when confronted with the fact that they haven't won a title yet, shows me that they have a competitive spirit. Or when teams underachieving in comparison to the expectations there seems to be always trouble in the organization and the locker room. Players still want to win as much as possible; there hasn't been a real change in competitive spirit among players/coaches over the years from my perspective. The circumstances changed, sure, but how would you want to prove that there is less competitive spirit than in the past?