Debunking NBA Myths

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I had a good discussion over at WDI discussing the current trends in the NBA. I argued that the quality of play had not declined, and I set along to gather data in my defense.

 

In any analysis of today's NBA, you will usually hear how fans, commentators, and analysts are sour on today's game. They agree that it is simply not as good as it was before. This has always puzzled me. Sports are a competitive enterprise, where it takes the best to win. In order to win, teams must strive to improve, find their opponent's weakness, and exploit it. Players and teams who regressed in skills would find themselves out of a job or business fairly quickly. So what happened. Is something backwards in the NBA? Or has our thinking been clouded? Nostalgia makes fools of us all. We remember the highlights without remembering the full picture. I have seen sloppy passes and poor shots in old NBA games. Hell, I own a BLOOPER tape of 80s NBA action. Do fundamentally sound, team players make bloopers? Apparently they do. But for the time being, let us see if we can not examine some of the myths prevailent in today's NBA and make sense of them.

 

Myth: Players today are worse shooters than players in previous eras.

 

Fact: Field goal percentage has regressed over time, from a high of 49.2% in 1984, to a low of 43.7% in 1999, the strike year. Last season, the NBA Field Goal Percentage was 43.9%. So players today naturally shoot worse, correct? Not necessarily. I contend that better defense is responsible for the drop in fielding percentage. This improvement in defense is not reflected in steals or turnovers, but we will get to those in a moment. The ultimate measure of defense is points allowed. They have declined heavily in the last ten years. Of course, you could argue this is a result of poor offense as well. But let us look at some other statistics.

 

Three point percentage. Those players of the 80s, with their fundamentals and ability to shoot, shot in the 20-30% range in the decade following the adoption of the 3 point line. The odd thing is that three point percentage took a noticeable jump right before points per game took a sharp drop. As three point percentage rises, teams take more three point shots. But in any case, players are better behind the arc than they were 15-20 years ago.

 

How about free throw percentage? If players today can not shoot, then that percentage must have declined as well. It has not. Free throw percentage has barely moved over the last 25 years. If defenses are better, contested field goals would decline. But free throws are uncontested. Unhindered by defense, the percentage remains the same.

 

Finally, I ran a test where I removed three point shots from field goal percentage. In the early 80s, the average team would take less than 200 3 point shots an entire season. So their field goal percentage remains closely the same. However, the distance between their field goal percentage and our era's tightens. Whereas previously, players in 1984 shot 5.3% better, with three pointers removed they shot just 3.9% better. They are still better, but the discrepancy is not as noticeable.

 

Myth: Today's players are more concerned with shooting the ball, and less concerned with passing.

 

Fact: Today's players take less shots per game than their predecessors. In 1979, NBA players took 91.7 shots per game. In 1984, they took 88.4 shots per game. In 1989, they took 89 shots per game. In 1994, they took 84.4 shots per game. Last season, they took just 79.8 shots per game. This would indicate players that take less shots, and use more of the shot clock setting up their shots. (As an aside, this may also explain the drop in shooting percentage, as teams are forced to make desperation shots at the end of the shot clock).

 

A friend replies that assists per game are down. Of course, because teams are taking less shots. Let us look at assists per basket instead. In 1979, 57.8% of field goals included an assist. In 1984, this number climbed to 60.2%. The cresendo of this stat came in 1994, when the percentage reached 62%. Last season, it was 60.8%. There was a jump after 1979, but after that, there has been almost no change in the relative number of assists per basket. There is no evidence to suggest that players are passing less.

 

Myth: Players today are sloppier than players of previous eras.

 

Fact: The first measure of sloppiness is a bevy of turnovers. Turnovers have steadily decreased over time, reaching an all time low this season of 14.2. An ALL TIME LOW. Think about that. These sloppy, fundamentally lacking players are better at maintaining control of the basketball than any of their predecessors.

 

So what happened to cloud our judgement? As a league ages and progresses, deviations in performance tend to even out. In baseball, for example, it is much harder to hit .400. An evolutionary process makes it harder to dominate. In the NBA of the past, we remember the play of players such as Jordan, Bird, Magic, Erving, and so on. And they were legitimately great players. But for all of those greats, there were scrubs. Players you will never remember, and players you could never be expected to remember. The best player in the NBA may not be as good as the best player in the NBA 15 years ago. But I am willing to bet that the 5th best player on a team is usually better than a team's 5th best player 15 years ago. In any case, I think the argument deserves a second look.

[Guest LL Cool M]

Yeah, I agree with everything you said. I rather watch a good Defenseive team then a scoring team like say, Dallas.

[Guest Mindless_Aggression]

Good read.

 

I think one could still argue that the way teams go about scoring has changed (numerous passes and more fast breaking replaced by one on one iso plays and pound inside mentality) but there really is no arguing the points you make to any great length. And in watching some of the "classic" 80's NBA, it's actually quite frustrating in some respects. There is no defense played, in a lot of cases. It's just up and down the floor, shots being taken as quickly as possible and while this might be fun to the casual fan, I'm probably gonna prefer a current Pistons game to a lot of that.

 

I do think however that the 5th best player on a team in 1985 knew he was the 5th best player on the team and accepted that. The 5th best player on the team now still thinks he should be the primary option and as a result, makes bad decisions while trying to play to a level that he is not on, especially a high school player who is used to being able to dominate rather easily.

 

But overall, well done.

[Steviekick 0]

I do agree with most of what you said, but the three myths that you pointed out don't necessarily reflect on the league as a whole but moreso to the "superstar" players.

 

Poor shooting percentages, more shooting than passing, and overall sloppiness is a problem with too many of the players that are supposed to be the highlights of the league.

 

• Dwayne Wade was put on the Olympic team because he's supposed to be one of the top up-and-comers in the league. He couldn't shoot from the outside and mostly got points off of drives to the basket. He also had sloppy ball handling.

• Allen Iverson is regarded as one of the top players in the league, if not one of the most popular. And we all know how much he likes to share. The same goes for Kobe Bryant.

• As for sloppy play, the top ten most turnover prone players include Iverson, Paul Pierce, Lebron, Marbury, and Vince Carter. Those guys are all highlight real players in the league.

 

Those probhlems don't represent the league as a whole, the problem is that the players that wind up becoming marquee names aren't necessarily the best players, and we all saw that with the US team in the olympics.

 

There are great players in the league. Ben Wallace, Ron Artest and Andrei Kirilenko are amazing defenders. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan play pretty damn near perfect basketball. Baron Davis and Sam Cassell have a good assist/turnover ratio. They are infinitely better players than many of the big names. The problem is that so much of the NBA is style over substance.

[Gert T 0]

This is no intended disrespect to the great players of the past eras, but I think from top to bottom the players are so much more athleticly gifted. The mindset may be, why shoot the 15 foot jumper, when you can take it to the hoop and slam it?

[Guest GreatOne]

The problem though with all this 'defense' argument is you still have teams like the Clippers and Warriors who have NEVER been defensive juggernauts, and the reason the 76ers scored only 77 points on them is defense?

 

I think it was the infamous Clipper-Boston stink-out-the-Fleet-Center game in March '03 and it was like 34-31 at the half, and Dennis Felton was on ESPN radio saying 'that's good defense now!', eh? See above especially concerning the Clips.

 

Sorry but I don't get the mentality that allowing the other team to shoot 50% from the floor is 'bad defense', or even less. Were the Bad Boys any less imposing because they allowed a 'whopping' 98 a game in 89-90 and around 45%? According to Frank Johnson when he was the Suns coach that would be horrible defense.

 

I'd say a lot of it has to do today with the lack of offensive movement, which is shocking since a good number of current coaches played in the 80s. You have one guy bring the ball up court, the big guy camp out in the lane, and then the other three guys stand there just hanging out to go get the rebound. Wow THAT'S difficult to defend. No wonder all these teams are playing 'better D'.

 

Hell wasn't it that way in the Finals? Payton brings the ball up, Shaq camps out in lane, Kobe clanks, rinse lather repeat, and the Lakers actually won a game doing this?

 

I watch a lot of 80s NBA too and really have no problem with the 'lack of defense' cause 1)there's still defensive plays being made, and 2)you actually had all five guys moving, instead of maybe two and the other guys just standing there waiting. Somewhere along the line somebody lost the concept of 'make the defense adjust to you' and it became vice versa, and ultimately you had all sorts of record lows being set eventually.

 

So, since this question will come up eventually, is there no defense played in college since your average 72-68 game would come out to about 114-109 in the NBA (shotclock and gameclock figured in with adjustments for foul shots, off. rebounds, etc)?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I do agree with most of what you said, but the three myths that you pointed out don't necessarily reflect on the league as a whole but moreso to the "superstar" players.

 

Poor shooting percentages, more shooting than passing, and overall sloppiness is a problem with too many of the players that are supposed to be the highlights of the league.

 

• Dwayne Wade was put on the Olympic team because he's supposed to be one of the top up-and-comers in the league. He couldn't shoot from the outside and mostly got points off of drives to the basket. He also had sloppy ball handling.

• Allen Iverson is regarded as one of the top players in the league, if not one of the most popular. And we all know how much he likes to share. The same goes for Kobe Bryant.

• As for sloppy play, the top ten most turnover prone players include Iverson, Paul Pierce, Lebron, Marbury, and Vince Carter. Those guys are all highlight real players in the league.

 

Those probhlems don't represent the league as a whole, the problem is that the players that wind up becoming marquee names aren't necessarily the best players, and we all saw that with the US team in the olympics.

 

There are great players in the league. Ben Wallace, Ron Artest and Andrei Kirilenko are amazing defenders. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan play pretty damn near perfect basketball. Baron Davis and Sam Cassell have a good assist/turnover ratio. They are infinitely better players than many of the big names. The problem is that so much of the NBA is style over substance.

As far as turnovers go, look over your list. These players who commit alot of turnovers are also the players given the responsibility of handling the ball most often for their team. These players are not any more likely to turn the ball over than anyone else on the court, but they rack up huge numbers of turnovers because they are always carrying the ball for their team. John Hollinger developed a statistic called turnover ratio. It compares turnovers to how many times a player was involved in a play, by counting his shot attempts, assists (when he held the ball but passed it), and turnovers. The most turnover prone players for 2002-03....

 

Darvin Ham

Joel Pryzbilla

DeSagana Diop

Jerome James

Smush Parker

Andrew DeClerq

Greg Ostertag

Mark Blount

Jerome Moiso

Corie Blount

 

It's not such a glamour list as before, but it makes sense that turnovers would come from less-talented big men.

 

As for Iverson and Bryant. This is a common criticism. But one, are they harming their teams by not passing (often to inferior shooters), and two, is this a new phenominon? Iverson does take large numbers of shots. But he's a unique player, and doesn't have much offensive support. He does pass the ball often. His 6.8 assists per game last year was second to Eric Snow on the team.

 

Meanwhile, look at Dominique Wilkins. He took 20.1 shots per game for his career, and had only 2.5 assists per game. Iverson takes 22.9 shots per game, but collects 5.7 assists per game. So again, its our clouded memory, rather than objectivism, which causes us to view these players in this way.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The problem though with all this 'defense' argument is you still have teams like the Clippers and Warriors who have NEVER been defensive juggernauts, and the reason the 76ers scored only 77 points on them is defense?

 

I think it was the infamous Clipper-Boston stink-out-the-Fleet-Center game in March '03 and it was like 34-31 at the half, and Dennis Felton was on ESPN radio saying 'that's good defense now!', eh? See above especially concerning the Clips.

 

Sorry but I don't get the mentality that allowing the other team to shoot 50% from the floor is 'bad defense', or even less. Were the Bad Boys any less imposing because they allowed a 'whopping' 98 a game in 89-90 and around 45%? According to Frank Johnson when he was the Suns coach that would be horrible defense.

 

I'd say a lot of it has to do today with the lack of offensive movement, which is shocking since a good number of current coaches played in the 80s. You have one guy bring the ball up court, the big guy camp out in the lane, and then the other three guys stand there just hanging out to go get the rebound. Wow THAT'S difficult to defend. No wonder all these teams are playing 'better D'.

 

Hell wasn't it that way in the Finals? Payton brings the ball up, Shaq camps out in lane, Kobe clanks, rinse lather repeat, and the Lakers actually won a game doing this?

 

I watch a lot of 80s NBA too and really have no problem with the 'lack of defense' cause 1)there's still defensive plays being made, and 2)you actually had all five guys moving, instead of maybe two and the other guys just standing there waiting. Somewhere along the line somebody lost the concept of 'make the defense adjust to you' and it became vice versa, and ultimately you had all sorts of record lows being set eventually.

 

So, since this question will come up eventually, is there no defense played in college since your average 72-68 game would come out to about 114-109 in the NBA (shotclock and gameclock figured in with adjustments for foul shots, off. rebounds, etc)?

First off, defense wasn't BAD 15-20 years ago. It was different. As time passes, teams adjust, and become better prepared to meet the challenges of offenses. The style of play changes. Forty years ago, teams scored 111 points a game. Were defenses bad? No, teams ran the court and shot.

 

The biggest effect on today's low scoring is not shooting percentage. It's the lack of shots. In 1984, the average team scored 110.1 points a game. In 2004, it was 93.4. If the average team in 2004 shot as many times as the teams in 1984, they would score 100 points a game, even with the lack of shooting percentage. So take all the assumptions about today's players. They can't shoot, they take bad shots, they don't look for their teammates, etc. Why are they shooting significantly LESS?

 

As for the Lakers, that's one example, and its of a team that got blown out in five games, and only won their one game because of a miracle shot. You'll need to do better then that.

 

As for college, I don't have statistics in front of me, but my gut reaction would be that the quality of the players, and consequently the defense, is not as good as in the NBA.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think there are 2 big problems with the current version of the NBA.

 

1. ESPN and the media in general. They do several things to hurt the game in my opinion. The first is they're always out to find the next Kobi or Lebron. They share a great responsibility for all the high schoolers hurting the quality of the game. The other big problem is they jump all over people for the wrong things. Kevin Garnett is one of the few superstars that doesn't try and do it all during the game. And he gets hammered in the media for daring to pass the ball towards the end of the game. So why bother passing it in favor of going 15-40 and getting a verbal blowjob from ESPN because you went over 30 for a game.

 

 

2. Management strategies. The current idea on a successful team is you need one superstar and then you can basically grab 11 scrubs off the street and make the playoffs. This further fuels a superstar ball hogging because the team strategy is to give the ball to the superstar.

[Guest MikeSC]

Meanwhile, look at Dominique Wilkins. He took 20.1 shots per game for his career, and had only 2.5 assists per game. Iverson takes 22.9 shots per game, but collects 5.7 assists per game. So again, its our clouded memory, rather than objectivism, which causes us to view these players in this way.

Umm, 'Nique was a small forward and not expected to distribute the ball. Iverson is a guard --- occasionally a point guard --- and is expected to pass.

 

And Dominique was routinely criticized for not giving up the ball more.

 

Today's game is not low-scoring due to good defense. It's low scoring due to the utter lack of good shooting. Hell, the kids watched Michael Jordan, noticed his dunks and ignored that most of his points were scored off mid-range jumpers. Guys could come off the bench in the 80's and actually hit open jumpers --- something "stars" have a hard time pulling off today.

 

Fact is, it's not solid defense doing anything as the number of insanely open shots given up is startling high. It's poor shooting keeping scoring down as the kids can't make those shots.

-=Mike

[Brett Favre 0]

• As for sloppy play, the top ten most turnover prone players include Iverson, Paul Pierce, Lebron, Marbury, and Vince Carter. Those guys are all highlight real players in the league.

 

Those probhlems don't represent the league as a whole, the problem is that the players that wind up becoming marquee names aren't necessarily the best players, and we all saw that with the US team in the olympics.

 

There are great players in the league. Ben Wallace, Ron Artest and Andrei Kirilenko are amazing defenders. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan play pretty damn near perfect basketball. Baron Davis and Sam Cassell have a good assist/turnover ratio. They are infinitely better players than many of the big names. The problem is that so much of the NBA is style over substance.

Stephon Marbury has a higher assist to turnover ratio than both Sam Cassell and Baron Davis. Just had to get it out.

 

Great discussion though, and I agree with everything. People say why points per game have gone down, well it's simple. Today people pass more and use up most, if not the whole shot clock. Where as back then they use to run up the court, pass it once and nail a jumper.

[Guest GreatOne]

As for the Lakers, that's one example, and its of a team that got blown out in five games, and only won their one game because of a miracle shot.  You'll need to do better then that.

Actually I wasn't trying to 'do' with that example--it was just a supplement, my point was more lack of movement. It isn't hard to set up defensively when the offense takes about two-thirds of the shot clock setting up.

 

Let me pull out a boxscore which actually might be surprising (courtesy basketballreference.com):

 

 

DALLAS (102)

 

fg ft rb

min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp

M Finley 35 2-10 2-2 2-7 2 2 6

A Walker 30 4-11 1-4 2-6 2 2 9

D Nowitzki 33 6-11 1-2 2-15 3 3 14

M Daniels 34 6-11 4-5 0-0 1 2 16

S Nash 35 8-14 0-0 2-4 10 2 18

A Jamison 29 6-12 3-4 0-0 0 2 15

T Delk 16 5-9 4-4 0-0 1 3 16

S Bradley 9 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 1 0

D Fortson 8 1-2 2-2 1-2 0 3 4

T Best 8 2-3 0-0 0-0 1 0 4

M N'diaye 3 0-0 0-0 0-1 0 0 0

J Howard DNP - STRAINED LEFT HAMSTRING

 

_____________________________________________________

TOTALS 240 40-83 17-23 9-35 20 20 102

_____________________________________________________

 

Percentages: FG-.482, FT-.739. 3-Point Goals:

5-24, .208 (M Finley 0-2, A Walker 0-5, D

Nowitzki 1-3, M Daniels 0-2, S Nash 2-5, A

Jamison 0-2, T Delk 2-5). Team Rebounds: 8.

Blocked Shots:1 (M N'diaye). Turnovers:9 (S

Nash 3, A Walker 2, A Jamison, M N'diaye, M

Daniels, D Nowitzki). Steals: 7 (A Jamison 3,

T Best, M Daniels, D Nowitzki, S Nash).

 

 

DETROIT (115)

 

fg ft rb

min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp

T Prince 37 5-8 3-4 0-5 5 1 14

B Wallace 37 7-8 3-6 7-13 4 1 17

M Okur 29 3-10 1-1 2-3 2 3 7

R Hamilton 32 6-15 4-4 1-3 4 3 16

C Billups 31 9-20 2-2 0-3 5 2 27

D Ham 16 0-0 0-0 2-5 0 1 0

C Atkins 27 5-9 3-3 0-2 4 1 18

B Sura 11 0-2 2-2 1-3 3 1 2

C Williamson 5 2-2 1-2 0-1 1 1 5

E Campbell 13 2-2 3-6 0-2 0 3 7

D Milicic 2 1-2 0-0 0-0 0 2 2

Z Rebraca DNP - COACH'S DECISION

 

_____________________________________________________

TOTALS 240 40-78 22-30 13-40 28 19 115

_____________________________________________________

 

Percentages: FG-.513, FT-.733. 3-Point Goals:

13-20, .650 (T Prince 1-2, C Billups 7-10, C

Atkins 5-8). Team Rebounds: 12. Blocked

Shots:7 (M Okur 2, B Wallace 2, E Campbell, T

Prince, R Hamilton). Turnovers:15 (B Sura 3,

D Ham 3, R Hamilton 3, C Atkins 2, E

Campbell, C Billups, B Wallace, D Milicic).

Steals: 8 (R Hamilton 2, M Okur 2, D Ham, B

Wallace, T Prince, C Atkins).

 

--------------------------------------------

DALLAS 30 25 22 25 - 102

DETROIT 23 32 35 25 - 115

--------------------------------------------

 

Technical fouls: Dallas - 1 (Defensive Three,

3:10 2nd).

Flagrant fouls: None. A: 22,076. T: 2:08.

Officials: Ron Garretson, Tony Brown, Violet

Palmer.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The above is, believe it or not, from this past January 11. What's the problem here? The Mavs still made less than half their shots, the Pistons shot a good percentage from the floor. Both these while taking less than 85 shots as well. Now the 'Allas' (no D remember) thing that is everybody's favorite argument, especially when you consider that the Pistons shout a rousing 43% over the regular season.

 

But at the same time I still can't buy into the 'defense is king' thing. Say what you want about defense controlling, that means the offense has to make adjustments--i.e. quicker setup, more off-ball movement, etc--and for the most part it's not happening. Using 12-15 seconds (and sometimes even as much as 18) to set up your offense plays right into the defense's hand, and even the aforementioned Mavs can stop teams. Speaking of which, if the Mavericks were such a poor defensive team, then what does that say for the Spurs, whom they beat 81-78 on Nov. 8th?

 

I still don't get why we're talking about a team that, god forbid, gave up 100 per game and 46% from the floor as a 'bad defensive team'. Actually, 15 years ago when the Pistons did that, they were defensive juggernauts.

 

Another thing about this defense rage, how do you know who's really any good if everyone's doing it? You can say 'Well the Pistons had all those games where they held the opponent under 70', and I say people are gonna stop caring at that point. Stern can brag all he wants about how Pistons-Pacers was such a huge ratings success, so that's the no. 1 thing the NBA should be concerned about these days?

 

I guess he shouldn't be concerned whatsoever with what happened in Athens. Yes we won the gold medal, with the WOMEN. Regardless of who played or not, barely medaling is ridiculous. Interestingly enough the game played by everyone (other than possibly Angola) the US faced, which was more wide-open, outside shooting, less reliant on inside play had Iverson and co looking like, well the infamous Iverson/Duncan bench photo. It's hard to claim with a straight face to have the greatest game in the world when it hasn't been proven since Sydney--and even that was shaky. That was the whole point of sending the Dream Team to Barcelona, to avenge the 'embarrassment' of Seoul.

 

Let's use this last example, GreatOne is trying to latch on as an undrafted free agent with the Sonics, yet he barely gets any good shots and goes 2 of 17 during preseason. Think Nate McMillan would buy his cries of 'Hey coach, that defense is too tough'? No it'd be 'Find another excuse and MAYBE you'll hook on in the CBA'. So why the sudden should it be any different when a team goes about 32 of 76 from the floor and loses 86-78? It's called creating, the offense should be able to do that since defense is just that, defending what the offense is trying to do.

[Guest GreatOne]

I will say this though, I watched games two years ago where guys were getting open left and right for shots, and missing them left and right, thus the new meaning of lights-out shooting: when their shots clanked off the rim, they literally knocked out all the lights.

 

You can't credit good defense for that. I hate to use a wrestling analogy but this good defense argument is treading into 'ECW, ECW!!!!' territory.

[razazteca 0]

Myth: Today's players are more concerned with shooting the ball, and less concerned with passing

 

Myth: Players today are sloppier than players of previous eras.

In my opinion: I believe that players are more concerned with looking good on tv than using the fundmentals of the game such as jump shots or free throws. In this age of global commercialism a player who does a flashy dunk (Jordan) or can drive down the lane and make a behind-the-back (Magic Johnson) pass will get a shoe deal and more. Now the current generation of american basketball players have grown up watching their heroes acheive success in the business world and want to copy them. Also consider of the Harlem Globetrotters who dazzled the fans with gimmicks and humor during the 80-90s who played the game in a nonserious manner.

 

Now consider this generations equivalent in the AND1 Mixtape Tour that travels around the country playing the game in a nonprofessional style. There are players using nick names just like the Globetrotters did in the past and these new players love to put on a show for the audience by playing a flashy style that will get cheers and awes by the crowd. You see AND1 players bounce the ball off the opponets heads and bounce the ball of the backboard for spectaclur dunks instead of 3 point shots from the corner more often than not. Now this game appeals to the young fans who are very impressionable to pop culture icons and when they see people cheer for the spectacular dunks they want to do it too.

 

The AND1 Mixtape Tour has influenced the NBA simply by the fact that it is drafting highschool players in the 1st round. Plus by the fact that the past 2 Rookies of the Year were high school players. Now these rookies want to become pop culture icons themselves by signing shoe deals for millions of dollars and doing commercials on tv. And how are they going to achieve this? By playing a flashy style of course and getting that much important sound clip on ESPN or by doing talk radio.

 

The youth of america has forgotten about the fundmentals of the game in order to get paid.

[ant_7000 0]

The AND1 Mixtape Tour has influenced the NBA simply by the fact that it is drafting highschool players in the 1st round. Plus by the fact that the past 2 Rookies of the Year were high school players. Now these rookies want to become pop culture icons themselves by signing shoe deals for millions of dollars and doing commercials on tv. And how are they going to achieve this? By playing a flashy style of course and getting that much important sound clip on ESPN or by doing talk radio.

 

The youth of america has forgotten about the fundmentals of the game in order to get paid.

I disagree with that, AND1 don't influence the NBA. I mean half the NBA players played streetball and came with flashy moves before AND1 had a mixtape. Look at at all the high schools that have been drafted, mostly those players were PF's and Swingmen.

 

As for the NBA I think players are getting bigger and tend to clog the lanes. there for offensive plays and movement isn't as smooth because of the clog lanes. Most teams use up almost the whole shot clock thus getting less shots off. But some players do miss open jump shots, that could be the rims are too tight.

[razazteca 0]

The AND1 influence has made the young players become egotistical players thinking of themselves instead of the team. For instance look at Carmelo Anthony who decided that he did not want to play in some games or Kobe Bryant who became a ball hog and refused to pass the ball in a few games. Also these players want to play political games like as in the case of "Whose team is this" forcing some trades or undermining the coaching staff.

[Brett Favre 0]

Also these players want to play political games like as in the case of "Whose team is this" forcing some trades or undermining the coaching staff.

That's always been the case. From Wilt Chamberlin to MJ to Kobe Bryant.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Razateca, you referenced free throws. This is also addressed to MikeSC, you referenced an "utter lack of good shooting." Free throw percentage has remained constant at least over the last 25 years. If players are bad shooters, how come they have no trouble shooting from the foul line?

 

As for the defense, understand I am NOT saying defenses 15-20 years ago were bad. They were a product of their eras. I am a believer that you compare teams relative to their eras. If the 89-90 Pistons allowed fewer points than most of the league, than they were a good defensive team.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Also these players want to play political games like as in the case of "Whose team is this" forcing some trades or undermining the coaching staff.

That's always been the case. From Wilt Chamberlin to MJ to Kobe Bryant.

That's a good point. I am not saying there are no bad things in the NBA. I am simple arguing that these are not a new phenominon. I do think the NBA itself could take steps to improve the quality of the game, but I think the players themselves are as good as always.

[razazteca 0]

If players are bad shooters, how come they have no trouble shooting from the foul line?

Because nobody is defending them? Some superstars like Shaq or Tim Duncan cannot buy a free throw. In that case it is more of a mental distraction that keeps them from making the easy points. Maybe they need to talk to themselves like Karl Malone or Jason Kidd to make those important free throws.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If players are bad shooters, how come they have no trouble shooting from the foul line?

Because nobody is defending them? Some superstars like Shaq or Tim Duncan cannot buy a free throw. In that case it is more of a mental distraction that keeps them from making the easy points. Maybe they need to talk to themselves like Karl Malone or Jason Kidd to make those important free throws.

Big men almost always have trouble with free throws. I think it is because their size is more of a factor than skill in getting them to the NBA. That's not an insult, just an observation.

 

As for no one defending them, if that's the case, why weren't the players of yesteryear even better from the line?

 

On another note. Earlier I defended Allen Iverson by bringing up Turnover Ratio. I got to thinking that Turnover Ratio deflated my argument about turnovers. So I computed Turnover Ratio for all the teams. Turnover Ratio improved in 1986, and has remained fairly constant ever since. So NBA teams over the last two decades have made turnovers at roughly the same rate.

[Brett Favre 0]

People see more flashiness, and feel that the game is worse. I disagree. While style may not be the best way to do things, it's sometimes still not clashing with the substance. Just because someone goes for a dunk, doesn't mean they are bad players. People feel that the Olympics were a great example of how bad the NBA is today. Wrong. We played their rules. I'm 100% sure that the games would be much different if it were played NBA rules. Remember, they are taught to play one way of basketball, NBA rules, not FIBA rules, and there are a lot of differences.

[razazteca 0]

As for no one defending them, if that's the case, why weren't the players of yesteryear even better from the line?

What do you expect when players like Rick Barry was shooting the ball granny style! Also back in the yesteryear personal fouls looked like wrestling moves because the second somebody tried to do a dunk they would get undercut by someone and land on their face or get a Lariatoooo by the center.

 

But seriously there has been cases of skilled players shooting high percentage at the line, like Chris Jackson/Abdul Mohammnd who had the record for most consective free throws made.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

But seriously there has been cases of skilled players shooting high percentage at the line, like Chris Jackson/Abdul Mohammnd who had the record for most consective free throws made.

 

Is that Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf you speak of? There have certainly been many examples of terrific free throw shooters. We still see them today. Four players topped 90% this season. Four topped 90% in 1994, as well as four in 1989. Oddly, no player shot free throws better than 90% in 1984.

[Steviekick 0]

People see more flashiness, and feel that the game is worse. I disagree. While style may not be the best way to do things, it's sometimes still not clashing with the substance. Just because someone goes for a dunk, doesn't mean they are bad players. People feel that the Olympics were a great example of how bad the NBA is today. Wrong. We played their rules. I'm 100% sure that the games would be much different if it were played NBA rules. Remember, they are taught to play one way of basketball, NBA rules, not FIBA rules, and there are a lot of differences.

That's a very good point. When in conversation about the US basketball's lackluster performance in the Olympics, I would bring that up. And they would just look at me totally confused and be like, well why couldn't they dunk the ball like MJ.

[razazteca 0]

The Olympics failure is an example of NBA players being self centered, bad selection by the committee, and bad coaching by Brown & Popavich.

[Guest MikeSC]

As for no one defending them, if that's the case, why weren't the players of yesteryear even better from the line?

If you really wish to use free throw percentage as a defense for the insanely horrendous shooting of players of today (keep in mind, it's hard to do anything flashy shooting free throws, so the temptation isn't there), it won't be the most solid argument.

 

How many players today can you say, honestly, would hit the wide-open jumper when given the chance? Hell, the ONLY one I can say I'd have a lot of faith in is Reggie Miller --- and lord knows he is hardly a youngster.

People see more flashiness, and feel that the game is worse. I disagree. While style may not be the best way to do things, it's sometimes still not clashing with the substance.

The NBA has become the iso-league --- EVERY possession seems to be little more than an iso play for the star player. This ends up deteriorating the ENTIRE team as they have no expectation to actually GET the shot.

 

Simple question: How often do you see more than 3 passes in a possession nowadays? Whether they like it or not, it IS a team game.

People feel that the Olympics were a great example of how bad the NBA is today. Wrong. We played their rules. I'm 100% sure that the games would be much different if it were played NBA rules.

Why should it even MATTER? If we have the "best players out there" --- we should be able to wipe the court with ANYBODY. And, sadly, we SHOULD be able to do so --- if the kids could learn to play as a team once in a while.

 

The whole "Different rules" argument is bunk.

 

Let's say, oh, an elite soccer club in Europe comes over to America. Even if they play by MLS rules --- do you honestly think an American all-star team would have much of a shot at even competing, much less winning?

Remember, they are taught to play one way of basketball, NBA rules, not FIBA rules, and there are a lot of differences.

The differences are minor and, amazingly, college players used to be able to handle the differences in stride.

-=Mike

[razazteca 0]

Let's say, oh, an elite soccer club in Europe comes over to America. Even if they play by MLS rules --- do you honestly think an American all-star team would have much of a shot at even competing, much less winning

Man U did a tour of the USA recently did'nt they or was that just Beckham?

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's say, oh, an elite soccer club in Europe comes over to America. Even if they play by MLS rules --- do you honestly think an American all-star team would have much of a shot at even competing, much less winning

Man U did a tour of the USA recently did'nt they or was that just Beckham?

Oh, that'd involve me actually following soccer to know.

-=Mike

...Besides, isn't Beckham on a Spanish team?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If you really wish to use free throw percentage as a defense for the insanely horrendous shooting of players of today (keep in mind, it's hard to do anything flashy shooting free throws, so the temptation isn't there), it won't be the most solid argument.

 

But if players are so concerned with being flashy, why doesn't a fundamentally sound shooter come into the league and wipe the floor with them. Some NBA teams have read Moneyball. They're looking for the inefficiencies of the game. If the problem exists, why isn't it being exploited?

 

How many players today can you say, honestly, would hit the wide-open jumper when given the chance? Hell, the ONLY one I can say I'd have a lot of faith in is Reggie Miller --- and lord knows he is hardly a youngster.

 

Quite a few. You only have faith in Reggie Miller, but that's your opinion clouding your judgement. I am sure there are many bad shooters today. There were also bad shooters twenty years ago. There are some terrific shooters today.