Debunking NBA Myths

[Guest MikeSC]

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?

 

Because flash makes them money. The NBA has become little more than street-ball --- an absolute bastardization of the sport. It's all "Me! Me! Me!". They want the ESPN highlights, they want the endorsement deals --- and hitting jumpers doesn't do it. The kids aren't total idiots. They do know what sells.

 

And, it is being exploited. Why do you think there are increasingly more foreign born players in the NBA? Because they, flat out, are more solid players. Might not be as good athletically, but fundamentals tend to kick the shit out of athleticism.

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.

Who?

 

Who are the great shooters of today?

 

Ray Allen is a possibility --- but not a good one.

 

Were there horrible shooters in the past? Absolutely.

 

They, unlike today, did not make up the vast majority of the league.

 

And, of course, the ratings have nose-dived as of late for a good reason. The game is almost painful to watch as you have sloppy teams having their "Superstars" exchange bricks.

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And, it is being exploited. Why do you think there are increasingly more foreign born players in the NBA? Because they, flat out, are more solid players. Might not be as good athletically, but fundamentals tend to kick the shit out of athleticism.

 

There are more foreign players simply because the area is scouted more, and the areas are growing more interest in basketball. I wouldn't argue there is something different about what they are doing that makes them successful. I would point out that there are foreign players, like Dirk Nowitski, who lack certain skills (defense in this case). So foreign players do have their warts as well.

 

Who?

 

Who are the great shooters of today?

 

Ray Allen is a possibility --- but not a good one.

 

Brent Barry, Peja Stojakovic, Steve Nash, Kyle Korver, Michael Redd, Erik Piatkowski, and several others. They are out there, if you know where to look.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And besides, most of your observations are based on subjective evidence. If today's players can not shoot, why is three point percentage on the rise? Why hasn't free throw percentage dropped?

 

I agree today's NBA needs improvement. But it is not the result of poor players.

[lomasmoney 0]

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

no its an example of the fact that american players just don't know how to move without the ball, come off screens, shoot the mid range jumper, create for their teammates or hit a 3 point shot that is THREE FEET shorter than the NBA three. The players of today are just not as good fundamentally as the players of twenty years ago

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Again, where is the statistical evidence, and why were the best players in the Olympics still NBA players? Why haven't these fundamentally lacking players committed more turnovers. Why has three point shooting percentage gotten better? Why hasn't free throw percentage dropped? Everyone always adds their assumptions of the current NBA game, but no one has any PROOF. I am not talking about shooting here. There is NOTHING in the stats I have seen to indicate a lack of fundamentals.

[Steviekick 0]

Again, where is the statistical evidence, and why were the best players in the Olympics still NBA players? Why haven't these fundamentally lacking players committed more turnovers. Why has three point shooting percentage gotten better? Why hasn't free throw percentage dropped? Everyone always adds their assumptions of the current NBA game, but no one has any PROOF. I am not talking about shooting here. There is NOTHING in the stats I have seen to indicate a lack of fundamentals.

The truth....

 

No one knows.

[razazteca 0]

The stats are that the TEAM NBA has lost 3 games in this Olympics. This is the most loses that the team has ever had in the history of Olympics. TEAM NBA was an imbarressment to the league to the country and proves that the world has found the weakness and exploited it. None of the coaches had an answer to stoping the FIBA style of play. The stats are that the FIBA teams shoot 30 or more 3 points a game this was the reason for all of the loses to Puerto Rico, Argentina, and Italy. Now TEAM NBA is suppose to be the best in the world why did'nt they get some rebounds and score off the fastbreaks? What is the excuse? Were all of the refs conspiring against America because of political reasons?

 

TEAM NBA had no answer to the ZONE DEFENSE. They tried to run layups down the paint to get some fouls but guess what! Nobody could make the Free Throws! Big deal they got rebounds but TEAM NBA could no capitalize on this. Hell when they tried to play perimeter defense the opponets made 4 POINT PLAYS!

 

Compare the 3 point percentage and 3 point shots made between TEAM NBA and Argentina, Puerto Rico, or Italy. There is your proof. Team NBA could not run the score up or defend the perimeter. TEAM NBA lost the games because of this.

[Steviekick 0]

But you can't judge the NBA as a whole based on Team NBA's olympic showing. There are plenty of competent three point shooters in the NBA, it just happened that none of them were on the Olympic team. Look at the top 20 3pt shooters in the NBA. None of them were on that team.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And Italy lost. Spain failed to medal. Lithuania failed to medal. What are their excuses?

[Steviekick 0]

Italy wasn't expected to do anything of value, so them getting the Silver was a suprisse.

 

Spain lost thanks to a ref conspiracy against them.

 

Lithuania lost because they didn't have the cool Grateful Dead shirts like they did in 92.

[Guest GreatOne]

Saying stats don't indicate lack of fundamentals and then challenging for proof otherwise is kind of a trick challenge since fundamentals are intangible.

[razazteca 0]

And Italy lost. Spain failed to medal. Lithuania failed to medal. What are their excuses?

Argentina PWND them and nobody could stop MANU Ginobili. Team NBA was not the only team that had issues with the refs.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Saying stats don't indicate lack of fundamentals and then challenging for proof otherwise is kind of a trick challenge since fundamentals are intangible.

Which makes fundamentals a subjective evaluation. Since people are naturally nostalgic, of course the preference leans towards the old players. But there ARE portions of fundamentals we can measure, because they show up in the stat sheet. Namely turnovers. Players with bad fundamentals would tend to make more turnovers. They have not.

 

I know there are issues that fail to show up in the stat sheet. But when challenging the conventional wisdom, we need something more concrete than subjective arguments. Especially since none of us have really studied game films from 20 years ago. Of course we have classic NBA games, but those are the BEST games from that era. They had bad games too, but those will not see the light of day.

[Brett Favre 0]

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.

 

The Lakers do it all the time. So do the Kings, Nets, a shitload of other teams. Just because there are a lot of superstars that "seem" selfish, doesn't mean that they are selfish. Have you watched games from the 70's and 80's? You'd see the player get the ball to a superstar and have him take a contested jumper most of the time going up the court. There were a few instances were coaches like Red Auerbach (sp?) and Red Holzman (sp?) that used a triangle offense or more of a motion way of getting the ball around. But the reason why points have declined is because back then they DID do iso plays and just took a jumper within 6 seconds into the shot clock.

 

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.

 

We do have the best players sure. But not by a wide margin. The US took it's game to the world after the 92 Olympics, and since then they've been playing basketball as much, if not more than us. They have stars AS big as us. Just because they don't come to the NBA, doesn't mean that they suck. There are huge leagues in FIBA, and the just because we are American, we should kick anyones ass mentality is moronic. If you even watched the Olympics, you'd see that they did play team ball, and that Argentina was just the better team. After all, they've played with each other much more often.

 

And No, the FIBA argument isn't bunk. The three point lines are shorter, making it more difficult to step back and take a three since it's closer. There are no defensive 3 second violations which just lets one of your mean camp out in the paint if you are playing a zone. There's no offensive goaltending, something that if the US had had a feeling of in the beginning, would have had more points. The fouls are obviously called differently since Tim Duncan looked clueless out there. The quarters are shorter allowing even the worse team to steal a victory. You only get 2 timeouts per half. I mean, there are differences. It's stupid to say that these are minor when in the NBA they teach you to play one way, and once you're use to it, if you play sports in life, it's hard to unadjust from it.

[Dangerous A 0]

Excellent discussion going on here.

 

The statistics that alkeiper bring up do not lie. I believe that while today's players aren't as fundamentally sound as players from the past, I think the main reason for the dip in scoring is because defense is stressed way more than in the past. The past is very romanticized, especially the Bird/Magic era. A lot of people think that those guys never missed a shot or committed a turnover when watching highlight reels from the past. Those reels don't show the missed shots and silly plays that everyone made. It's kind of like the And1 guys. When you watch "Streetball", you are getting the edited package of these guys, but don't let the smooth taste fool you. If you've ever seen And1 live and in person, there are a ton of mistakes and sloppy play that never make it on the show. The media (specifically ESPN) encapsulate this to no end.

 

Teams don't run and gun as much as teams used to in the earlier years of the league. If any of you have NBA TV, watch some games from the 80's. You will see a ton of matador defense being played and guys getting out and trying to run a ton more than today. Today, defense is the emphasis and if any of you have played any organized ball in your lives, you know it takes energy to be a very good defensive team. Run and gun teams give up more points because they simply don't get back defensively. Lock down, halfcourt "D" teams play halfcourt basketball because they wouldn't have the energy to play run and gun and be a consistent lockdown team. Because the tempo of the games is such that teams are concentrating so much on defense and playing halfcourt, the scoring goes down. In the late 80's-early 90's when lack of scoring wasn't an epidemic, you'll see that teams took a more lackadaisacal approach on defense in the regular season with more running and uptempo ball and then switched gears in the playoffs to more of a halfcourt game and traditionally scoring would take a hit in the playoffs right around the Pistons back to back era. (that particular Pistons team is to credit for the defensive play and philosophy you see today from many teams as the Lakers and Celtics ran and ran and would play a stretch of defense to try to pull away in a game) I just think now teams have decided to adopt to locking teams up and worrying about offense second. Sure, I'll admit that yesterday's players were more adept at hitting a jumper than today, but today's players have more hands in their faces because defenses are more intense than in the past.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

 

Another theory that struck me about shooting percentage. Three point attempts are up. I think we can agree that distance from the basket correlates with shooting percentage. The further away you are from the basket, the lower the league shooting percentage becomes. My theory is that not only are more three point attempts occuring, but the average shot is taken further from the basket than it was 15-20 years ago. This would have the predicted adverse effect on shooting percentages.

[Dr. Tom 0]

The big difference in defense is that the zone defense has been legal in the NBA for several years now. Back in the 80's, this wasn't the case. Man-to-man defense was required, and quick, skilled players could exploit the fact that they were covered by an inferior b-baller. Zone defenses are much different animals, and a player who beats one single defender still is unlikely to get an open shot.

 

It would be interesting to track shooting percentages and turnover ratios since the zone defense became legal.

[Dangerous A 0]

While zone defenses have only been legally allowed recently, teams have been disguising zones and generally doing a better job of switching since the early 90's. (again, starting with the Pistons back to back teams of 89 and 90) I remember during the second three peat of the Bulls, Phil Jackson all but saying they were playing a disguised junk defense against the Jazz to help cover up deficiencies because Pippen and Harper were playing hurt and they were 2 of their top defenders on the team. Riley's Knicks and Heat teams also did a good job of playing man, but also held zone principals when switching.

 

After watching some games on NBA TV from the 80's (including a Laker/Celtic final from 84) I noticed that a lot of guys were not getting back defensively and more full court pressure, which if broken properly, will get you a shitload of open shots and fastbreak oppurtunities.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What specific year did the zone defense become legal?

[Guest GreatOne]

Still not buying these arguments for 'good D', I mean were people defending the neutral zone trap in the NHL to this level?

 

Don't we all, as fans, decry the 'play not to lose' mentality? I don't exactly consider going for three and four minutes at a time (multiple times during the game) with anywhere from 0-2 points and winning a game 72-66 'playing to win'.

 

I fail to understand how if the Rockets beat the Cavs 78-69 not because the Rockets did anything great but because the Cavs' shot 30% from the floor, that's acceptable. Hell wasn't there a NO/Mia playoff game last year where the Hornets shot 27%?

 

I'm sorry but this *IS* getting to ECW levels............................

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not denying there are not bad NBA games. There certainly are. My argument is that there have ALWAYS been bad NBA games.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh yeah you had your 85-80s and 79-78s back in the heyday, me personally I remember the Sonics/Clippers 78-65 shitfest of '90. But my point is was there as many as there are today? I mean hell 84-82 in the NBA as far as I'm concerned isn't good basketball--unless teams are shooting in the upper 40s pct-wise. But hell I could still look back at going to the Garden and beating the Celtics 89-87 in Feb. '89 and say 'Whoa did that just happen?'. But how special is an 80-78 game if it happens all the time?

 

On the other side, the same opinion isn't held by the 'defense is king' types if we have a 114-108 game, usually it's the same 'no defense'..................

[Brett Favre 0]

I loved the NY/Miami series from the late 90's, and 2000, where most games were 80-78. It doesn't matter if it's high scoring or not, but the reason there aren't much high scoring games now is because of the zone defense. + Teams ran more often back then. The pace has slowed down.

[Dr. Tom 0]

What specific year did the zone defense become legal?

I'm pretty sure it was 2001.

 

Any hardcore NBA fans can correct me if I be wrong.