_Vcsgrizzfan_ wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:50 pm
On the notion that no one defends the bucket in the NBA anymore.
2023/24 - Blocks per Game.
1- OKC at 6.7
2- Boston at 6.5
3- Memphis at 6.2
15- Clippers at 5.2
Last - Miami at 3.1
2005-2006 (not cherry picked by the way - the prior year was a bit better and the next year was a bit worse). Data only goes back to 2005 on this site.
1. Clippers at 6.1
2. Utah at 6.0
3. Minny at 5.7
15 - Atlanta at 4.8
Last - Milwaukee at 3.2
More shots are being blocked today than 20 years ago. And that is with far more shots being taken from deep where it is significantly less likely shots will be blocked. The bucket is being guarded just fine and this notion that Iverson would be waltzing in anytime he wants is just not accurate. He would score less than he did in his day for a few reasons. He would not get as many minutes as a matter of course. No one is. Second, in today's more efficient game with more emphasis on the ability to shoot the 3, he wouldn't be given as many touches, and if he insisted on taking them, he would see more time on the pine thinking about it. Third, on virtually every team today, there are multiple guys who can shoot from deep and they will get touches and shots, which just leaves less for a guy like Iverson who basically had the green light to shoot whenever the heck he wanted.
Bottom line: You are completely blind (or a fool) if you think the rim/paint is defended today anywhere remotely close to the degree that it was defended in the 80's/90's, and probably the first half of the 00's.
PS: Giannis shoots 29% from 3. Luka is a below (league) average 3-point shooter for his career. DeRozen shoots 30%. MANY other prominent Scorers in today's NBA (Shai, Booker, Mitchell, Joker, etc.) are just average shooters from deep... so this notion of having to be a threat from deep is nonsense.
Iverson off the dribble would be breaking ankles by the dozen in today's league... and he'd have a virtual cakewalk to the basket 75% of the time.
Facts.
Iverson off the dribble would be breaking fewer ankles than he did back in the day, because the guys in front of him now are more athletic on average, than the guys who were in front of him back when he was at his peak. He would be getting fewer touches and getting more shots blocked at the rim, not less. Teams rotate today way more effectively than they ever have in the past, because they have to. He's a shrimp and almost anybody rotating to the bucket would have a decent shot at blocking his layup attempts.
There were often more guys in the paint in the 80s and 90s because you didn't have to guard out to the 3 point line, but there was also way more iso basketball because of illegal defense rules. The game was more post oriented as well for the same reason (no illegal defense) and because there were far fewer effective 3 point shooters.
More shots are blocked today, despite the fact that far more shots are taken from very deep where very few are blocked. That means far more are being blocked near the bucket. There is no door number 3.
Iverson (I'm embarrassed to admit) broke MJ's ankles off the dribble fool... he'd absolutely destroy today's NBA. Plus, stop acting like players have evolved to such a degree that today vs. 2000 (for example) is the same as today vs. your era (ie; the 60's and 70's).
Luka and Jokic are completely dominating the game today and they aren't any more athletic than the average player 30 years ago.
Stop being stupid.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
Bush4Ever. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:42 pm
Rob and Grizz have touched upon some of this, but what sincere boomer heads usually fail to understand is that while there are some factors that work in favor of superstar scoring in the modern era vs. older era, there are actually some that work against it as well. It's a push-pull of competing forces, not an unmixed blessing.
For example, minutes played (which in turn correlates to possessions). Today's superstars play fewer minutes than stars of yesteryear, which will generally lead to fewer scoring chances, unless offset by increased pace.
Giannis PPG 2024: 30.8 a game in 35 minutes/game
Karl Malone PPG 1991: 29.0 a game in 40.3 minutes/game
1.8 PPG difference, 6.2 percentage advantage over Malone
Giannis 2024 PPG/100 possessions: 41.7
Karl Malone 1991 PPG/100 possessions: 36.4
5.3 PP/100 possessions difference, 14.6 percentage advantage over Malone
Malone playing about 15 percent more minutes a game, pretty much turned what would be a moderate advantage for Giannis per-possession to a fairly close result per-game.
Obviously, that's not the only factor and yes some factors work in favor of the modern athlete, but as someone who doesn't seek to value any particular era per se...the advantages afford to modern top players seem to get talked about WAY more than the (relative) disadvantages they have to go through. I think a lot of that is because the culture of the NBA is pretty shitty, which prompts certain fans in that direction (I'm not even saying the culture is good...but you can have shitty politics and player empowerment be way too high....while playing great between the lines when you do play).
Giannis, Luka and Jokic completely dominate today's NBA and they are below-average to average (at best) long-range shooters in a zero perimeter contact / no rim protection era (with Luka an Joker being just average in the athleticism department).
Karl Malone would make today's NBA look like a HS Varsity team. A Malone/Stockton duo would embarrass today's league.
You guys are grasping at straws. It's funny to watch unfold.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
Bush4Ever. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:42 pm
Rob and Grizz have touched upon some of this, but what sincere boomer heads usually fail to understand is that while there are some factors that work in favor of superstar scoring in the modern era vs. older era, there are actually some that work against it as well. It's a push-pull of competing forces, not an unmixed blessing.
For example, minutes played (which in turn correlates to possessions). Today's superstars play fewer minutes than stars of yesteryear, which will generally lead to fewer scoring chances, unless offset by increased pace.
Giannis PPG 2024: 30.8 a game in 35 minutes/game
Karl Malone PPG 1991: 29.0 a game in 40.3 minutes/game
1.8 PPG difference, 6.2 percentage advantage over Malone
Giannis 2024 PPG/100 possessions: 41.7
Karl Malone 1991 PPG/100 possessions: 36.4
5.3 PP/100 possessions difference, 14.6 percentage advantage over Malone
Malone playing about 15 percent more minutes a game, pretty much turned what would be a moderate advantage for Giannis per-possession to a fairly close result per-game.
Obviously, that's not the only factor and yes some factors work in favor of the modern athlete, but as someone who doesn't seek to value any particular era per se...the advantages afford to modern top players seem to get talked about WAY more than the (relative) disadvantages they have to go through. I think a lot of that is because the culture of the NBA is pretty shitty, which prompts certain fans in that direction (I'm not even saying the culture is good...but you can have shitty politics and player empowerment be way too high....while playing great between the lines when you do play).
Giannis, Luka and Jokic completely dominate today's NBA and they are below-average to average (at best) long-range shooters in a zero perimeter contact / no rim protection era (with Luka an Joker being just average in the athleticism department).
Karl Malone would make today's NBA look like a HS Varsity team. A Malone/Stockton duo would embarrass today's league.
You guys are grasping at straws. It's funny to watch unfold.
Saying something dumb over and over again doesn't make it any less dumb.
Bottom line: You are completely blind (or a fool) if you think the rim/paint is defended today anywhere remotely close to the degree that it was defended in the 80's/90's, and probably the first half of the 00's.
PS: Giannis shoots 29% from 3. Luka is a below (league) average 3-point shooter for his career. DeRozen shoots 30%. MANY other prominent Scorers in today's NBA (Shai, Booker, Mitchell, Joker, etc.) are just average shooters from deep... so this notion of having to be a threat from deep is nonsense.
Iverson off the dribble would be breaking ankles by the dozen in today's league... and he'd have a virtual cakewalk to the basket 75% of the time.
Facts.
Iverson off the dribble would be breaking fewer ankles than he did back in the day, because the guys in front of him now are more athletic on average, than the guys who were in front of him back when he was at his peak. He would be getting fewer touches and getting more shots blocked at the rim, not less. Teams rotate today way more effectively than they ever have in the past, because they have to. He's a shrimp and almost anybody rotating to the bucket would have a decent shot at blocking his layup attempts.
There were often more guys in the paint in the 80s and 90s because you didn't have to guard out to the 3 point line, but there was also way more iso basketball because of illegal defense rules. The game was more post oriented as well for the same reason (no illegal defense) and because there were far fewer effective 3 point shooters.
More shots are blocked today, despite the fact that far more shots are taken from very deep where very few are blocked. That means far more are being blocked near the bucket. There is no door number 3.
Iverson (I'm embarrassed to admit) broke MJ's ankles off the dribble fool... he'd absolutely destroy today's NBA. Plus, stop acting like players have evolved to such a degree that today vs. 2000 (for example) is the same as today vs. your era (ie; the 60's and 70's).
Luka and Jokic are completely dominating the game today and they aren't any more athletic than the average player 30 years ago.
Stop being stupid.
The average guard and wing today is definitely more athletic than in the 90s. We are talking averages here since that is what matters in the context of this question. Iverson is breaking fewer ankles than he did in his day, with defensive rotations far more prevalent than they were in the 90s and him being a shrimp who can only lay it in, he's getting his shot blocked way more often than he did in his prime. He's getting fewer minutes, fewer touches and is scoring less than he did when he played. His game translates less well than many others that you could have chosen from.
Iverson off the dribble would be breaking fewer ankles than he did back in the day, because the guys in front of him now are more athletic on average, than the guys who were in front of him back when he was at his peak. He would be getting fewer touches and getting more shots blocked at the rim, not less. Teams rotate today way more effectively than they ever have in the past, because they have to. He's a shrimp and almost anybody rotating to the bucket would have a decent shot at blocking his layup attempts.
There were often more guys in the paint in the 80s and 90s because you didn't have to guard out to the 3 point line, but there was also way more iso basketball because of illegal defense rules. The game was more post oriented as well for the same reason (no illegal defense) and because there were far fewer effective 3 point shooters.
More shots are blocked today, despite the fact that far more shots are taken from very deep where very few are blocked. That means far more are being blocked near the bucket. There is no door number 3.
Iverson (I'm embarrassed to admit) broke MJ's ankles off the dribble fool... he'd absolutely destroy today's NBA. Plus, stop acting like players have evolved to such a degree that today vs. 2000 (for example) is the same as today vs. your era (ie; the 60's and 70's).
Luka and Jokic are completely dominating the game today and they aren't any more athletic than the average player 30 years ago.
Stop being stupid.
The average guard and wing today is definitely more athletic than in the 90s. We are talking averages here since that is what matters in the context of this question. Iverson is breaking fewer ankles than he did in his day, with defensive rotations far more prevalent than they were in the 90s and him being a shrimp who can only lay it in, he's getting his shot blocked way more often than he did in his prime. He's getting fewer minutes, fewer touches and is scoring less than he did when he played. His game translates less well than many others that you could have chosen from.
Guys like Kyrie Irving and LeFraud can get to the basket at will today, but a lightning quick, all-time elite slasher like Iverson can't because of "athleticism and stuff".
Oookay then...
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
Iverson (I'm embarrassed to admit) broke MJ's ankles off the dribble fool... he'd absolutely destroy today's NBA. Plus, stop acting like players have evolved to such a degree that today vs. 2000 (for example) is the same as today vs. your era (ie; the 60's and 70's).
Luka and Jokic are completely dominating the game today and they aren't any more athletic than the average player 30 years ago.
Stop being stupid.
The average guard and wing today is definitely more athletic than in the 90s. We are talking averages here since that is what matters in the context of this question. Iverson is breaking fewer ankles than he did in his day, with defensive rotations far more prevalent than they were in the 90s and him being a shrimp who can only lay it in, he's getting his shot blocked way more often than he did in his prime. He's getting fewer minutes, fewer touches and is scoring less than he did when he played. His game translates less well than many others that you could have chosen from.
Guys like Kyrie Irving and LeFraud can get to the basket at will today, but a lightning quick, all-time elite slasher like Iverson can't because of "athleticism and stuff".
Oookay then...
You are incapable of having an even handed discussion. Bush has pointed that out ample times. You are unwilling, and probably unable, to have a meaningful discussion and just let your biases lead you wherever they will. You don't deal with points brought up, you merely yell something barely tangentially on point and think you're somehow dealing with the argument. Screaming it's the easiest time ever to get to the rim doesn't make it so, and ignoring all the changes to the game that go against your position doesn't make them any less valid.
I believe Iverson is scoring less in this era. I've explained why. You've yelled platitudes. I'm done wasting my breath on this, because you are just disingenuous and not really interested in a legitimate debate.
Titan18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 9:14 am
KingKarl can go coast to coast and score easily against tHe UnIcOrN but yes Allen Iverson would struggle in this era for stuff and reasons.
Always funny when white suburban dads think they know more than actual professional athletes
As opposed to Iverson’s era, where Oliver Miller could play 33 minutes a game.
Titan18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 9:14 am
KingKarl can go coast to coast and score easily against tHe UnIcOrN but yes Allen Iverson would struggle in this era for stuff and reasons.
Always funny when white suburban dads think they know more than actual professional athletes
As opposed to Iverson’s era, where Oliver Miller could play 33 minutes a game.
Literally has nothing to do with the topic.
Let’s talk about 1920s baseball. Has the same relevancy as what you just brought up
Titan18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:36 am
Literally has nothing to do with the topic.
Let’s talk about 1920s baseball. Has the same relevancy as what you just brought up
Iverson played in an era where obese bus drivers were full time starters. That clear things up for you?
BTW, Joe Ingles would be an all-star in AI’s era. Fat fuck Antoine Walker was playing 40+ minutes per game.
Still has zero relevancy to the fact no defense is played today and Iverson would 100% cook.
You’re trying too hard to join the BWGC by going to their default arguments when they are desperate after getting dog walked by TDK. In this case, the said argument makes no sense in context to what is being discussed.
LeTots and members of the BWGC are in such denial AND for so many reasons ... and it's hilarious watching them flip-flop and deflect when you back them in the corner, as Titan did with the clip above.
PS: Still ROFLMAO at the notion that Allen freakin' Iverson, who, I'm embarrassed to say, broke the ankles of the GOAT Michael Jordan (who is a better Defender AND just as/more athletic than any perimeter defender today) would somehow have a harder time getting to the basket in today's zero-perimeter contact era, where there is more spacing / room to operate than EVER before and where the rim/paint has never been less protected.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
PS: LOVE the music in that clip, BTW... Ringling Bros... exactly what today's "Defense" is like.
But-But-But... not even the super-athletic elite slashers of the 90's (MJ, Drexler, Kobe, AI, etc.) would succeed against today's modern studs (like Luka, who is lighting up the league like a Christmas Tree despite 'average' athleticism and average shooting ability).
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
Titan18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:36 am
Literally has nothing to do with the topic.
Let’s talk about 1920s baseball. Has the same relevancy as what you just brought up
Iverson played in an era where obese bus drivers were full time starters. That clear things up for you?
BTW, Joe Ingles would be an all-star in AI’s era. Fat fuck Antoine Walker was playing 40+ minutes per game.
Still has zero relevancy to the fact no defense is played today and Iverson would 100% cook.
You’re trying too hard to join the BWGC by going to their default arguments when they are desperate after getting dog walked by TDK. In this case, the said argument makes no sense in context to what is being discussed.
Be your own person boss
The contention no defense is played today is just stupid. Nothing more, nothing less. It is stupid.
No one said Iverson would have no success today. I contend he would score less than he did when he played and I stand by that. If you have a legitimate argument to counter the points I made, make it. Otherwise, you're just blathering like TDK.
Titan18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:36 am
Literally has nothing to do with the topic.
Let’s talk about 1920s baseball. Has the same relevancy as what you just brought up
Iverson played in an era where obese bus drivers were full time starters. That clear things up for you?
BTW, Joe Ingles would be an all-star in AI’s era. Fat fuck Antoine Walker was playing 40+ minutes per game.
Still has zero relevancy to the fact no defense is played today and Iverson would 100% cook.
You’re trying too hard to join the BWGC by going to their default arguments when they are desperate after getting dog walked by TDK. In this case, the said argument makes no sense in context to what is being discussed.
Be your own person boss
I’m the president of the BWGC and we’re still undefeated.
It's not so much that "no Defense" is played today... it's played, but it's just played very soft and very weak "relative to" the late 80's - early 00's... especially in/around the paint and at the rim.
To suggest otherwise is an example of a person in complete denial.
In fact with all the spacing on the perimeter, the wide open lane, all the Bigs chuckin' 3's (instead of defending the basket), and the no-contact rules in effecrt it might even be easier to Score today than it was in the 60's.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
