Nash won 2 MVPs and Kobe avg exploded right after hand checking removed

Lord_Chief_Rocka

Superstar
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
17,727
Reputation
1,500
Daps
50,003
Goddamn y’all overrate hand checking so much on this forum. In y’all minds David Windgate would be a 25 ppg player today because he played in the insanely difficult hand check era.

The truth is.... the same players that are dominating today would be dominating back then. Just like nobody can check KD now, nobody back then can check KD.
Ninjas on here overrate zone defense way more than hand checking
 

Lord_Chief_Rocka

Superstar
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
17,727
Reputation
1,500
Daps
50,003
This is defense in 1992. Full-on handchecking allowed, a deciding game in the Finals. THIS is what ya'all are telling me is supposed to scare LeBron and Curry:



:heh:

Where's all the deadly hand-checking? They giving the weakest calls to the Bulls left and right. :dead:

I'm sorry, but a team that played defense that weak today wouldn't go anywhere in the playoffs. :mjlol:

The Cavs made the finals the last 2 years being a bad defensive team
 

Lord_Chief_Rocka

Superstar
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
17,727
Reputation
1,500
Daps
50,003
I know it changed the game but I never realized those two things coincided with the revision of the rule in 04-05.
Got me thinking should we even be comparing players between the two eras



Look it’s pretty simple. Leagues don’t create rules to make scoring harder. It’s damn near against their business model.

It’s Bron peasants that try to shyt on everything pre 2010
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,940
Daps
204,127
Reppin
the ether
You can not compare three point volume it’s a different era fool. And why’d you use EFG which nobody uses and not TS. Your another Gil Scott only use numbers when it benefits you.
Blazers only made 10 threes in 6 games combined, and they only shot 19% from three. Saying I can't use that as a data point is just dumb. The Celtics had better three-point shooters, full stop.

eFG% is the most accurate measure of how efficient a player is at shooting the ball. TS% includes free throws, which aren't shot in the course of the offense and vary too much depending on how officials call the game. In eras where officials call more fouls, TS% gets inflated and doesn't tell you whether they were actually making shots or just getting to the line.



They finished 7th in offensive rating 111.4 ppg and had a point differential of 7 while the Celtics with Kyrie for 60 games had an offensive rating of 18th at 107 ppg that’s like the distance between the best offense and the 15th. Buck Williams was a 4 and shot 65% TS. Cliff Robinson wasn’t a post big he was a space big. Duckworth was your average plotter who was needed at the time to guard all the other good centers. They didn’t have a great half court offense, but they scored well.
Buck's shooting % was meaningless because he made nothing other than putbacks and dunks, they didn't run plays for him and he had no offensive game in the post (only 7ppg against the Bulls). It wasn't like Buck was a pick-and-roll threat or beating guys in the post, they ran literally no plays for him. And as you point out, neither Cliff nor Duckworth had low post game either. And neither was hitting threes either. Which demonstrates what I'm saying about the Blazer offense - it's silly to call it an elite offense when none of your 4/5 can score in the low post OR hit threes and none of your perimeter players are hitting threes either.

To compare offensive rating and ppg for the regular season is just dumb as regular season scoring in the 1980s and early 1990s was inflated by tons of fast breaks and defenses that didn't even try to dial down until the 4th quarter. Even Charlotte averaged 110ppg that same year with a legitimately bad team that started Muggsy Bogues, 2nd-year Kendall Gill, Johnny Newman, rookie Larry Johnson, and Kenny Gattison....a lineup that made 0.4 threes a game and still rolled up points just running up and down the floor.

So a team had a 5'3" point guard in an era where hand-checking was totally legal, not a single 3pt shooter in the starting lineup, no great scorers....and still averaged 110 points a game? THAT is why it would be dumb to compared offensive rating across eras with no context.
 

Bigblackted4

Superstar
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
25,821
Reputation
2,129
Daps
44,055
Reppin
Eastcleveland
Blazers only made 10 threes in 6 games combined, and they only shot 19% from three. Saying I can't use that as a data point is just dumb. The Celtics had better three-point shooters, full stop.

eFG% is the most accurate measure of how efficient a player is at shooting the ball. TS% includes free throws, which aren't shot in the course of the offense and vary too much depending on how officials call the game. In eras where officials call more fouls, TS% gets inflated and doesn't tell you whether they were actually making shots or just getting to the line.




Buck's shooting % was meaningless because he made nothing other than putbacks and dunks, they didn't run plays for him and he had no offensive game in the post (only 7ppg against the Bulls). It wasn't like Buck was a pick-and-roll threat or beating guys in the post, they ran literally no plays for him. And as you point out, neither Cliff nor Duckworth had low post game either. And neither was hitting threes either. Which demonstrates what I'm saying about the Blazer offense - it's silly to call it an elite offense when none of your 4/5 can score in the low post OR hit threes and none of your perimeter players are hitting threes either.

To compare offensive rating and ppg for the regular season is just dumb as regular season scoring in the 1980s and early 1990s was inflated by tons of fast breaks and defenses that didn't even try to dial down until the 4th quarter. Even Charlotte averaged 110ppg that same year with a legitimately bad team that started Muggsy Bogues, 2nd-year Kendall Gill, Johnny Newman, rookie Larry Johnson, and Kenny Gattison....a lineup that made 0.4 threes a game and still rolled up points just running up and down the floor.

So a team had a 5'3" point guard in an era where hand-checking was totally legal, not a single 3pt shooter in the starting lineup, no great scorers....and still averaged 110 points a game? THAT is why it would be dumb to compared offensive rating across eras with no context.

They didn’t shoot three pointers in volume that’s what you can’t use EFG across eras that’s a stat for our time. True Shooting doesn’t outweigh free throw percentage unless you taking Harden levels of free throws.

Also I use offensive rating which adjust for pace which take the Hornets down to 107 offensive rating. They just played very fast but wasn’t efficient. If you play fast you’ll score a lot of point see the Lakers this year.

Offensive rating is the best stat to compare offenses across eras, ppg is useless. You have to adjust for pace. But I’m done with this conversation, your obviously one of these guys that base analysis on three pointers but don’t realize they didn’t value it as much.
 

desjardins

Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
18,603
Reputation
1,603
Daps
69,244
Reppin
Mustard Island
Damn did people even watch the video before running to come defend they agendas :what:
Kobe was a multi time allstar, won most of his rings, and was damn near a HOF lock during the hand checking era
Mentioned him because the jump to 35ppg right after the new rules is an obvious example of him likely exploiting the changes like he was supposed to do

And the video touches on the original 1994 change but obviously it wasn't enough since anybody watching back then knows they were still hand checking and then felt the need to further define and enforce the rule in 04/05

No way you can watch tape of old games and act like there is no difference, you could literally guide players off their path in the hand checking era. Also remember the illegal defense rule was added in the early 2000s so in the hand checking era you could also camp in the lane. THE shyt WAS HARDER :why:
 

Goatpoacher

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
8,468
Reputation
600
Daps
16,196
that year also coincided with Shaq leaving so he can take more shots :manny:

No. Shaq left the year before and Kobe was terrible in his first season without shaq. He didn't put up much in the way of points, he got injured, the lakers were in the playoff picture, then kobe came back, started ballhogging, and the lakers lost most of their games to miss the playoffs.
 
Top