Pacers vs Cavs Series

[FW_Hoosier]

47 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just compared the 86-87 season to last years season and the scoring was higher in 86-87 than last year.  Seeing this I don't think your assessment about the pace and scoring is better today.

86-87

Average points per game 109.9

FT% 76

FG% 48%

3PT% 31

Average 3PT attempt a game 7

No teams average less than 100

Highest team scoring average 118 points

 

16-17

Average points per game 105.6

FT% 77%

FG% 45%

3PT% 35%

Average 3PT attempt per game 27

1 team average less than 100

Highest team scoring average 115 points

The only difference is that teams depends on the the 3 a lot more today than they did in the past and still score less per game

 

So looks like all that vaunted defense in the 80s and 90s wasn’t actually very effective.

[btownqb]

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I think you are thinking more from the 90's with the Knicks and Pistons than the 80's where the pace was very fast.  I don't know if you watched the NBA from then but it was a free flowing and an up tempo league at that time with teams like the show time Lakers.

That's probably true. I know it's faster than the 90s.

[IU Scott]

9 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

So looks like all that vaunted defense in the 80s and 90s wasn’t actually very effective.

Never said they played great defense in the 80's but they sure did in the 90's and the pace was slower then as well.

[KoB2011]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Never said they played great defense in the 80's but they sure did in the 90's and the pace was slower then as well.

It's a lot easier to play good defense when the pace is slow and you can beat the hell out of guys. That's not actually good defense, it just results in it being difficult to score. 

[FW_Hoosier]

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Never said they played great defense in the 80's but they sure did in the 90's and the pace was slower then as well.

What changed?

[Cottage Grove]

5 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

What changed?

I don't know about any rules changes from the 80's to the 90's, but I think part of it was a reaction to how the game was played in the 80's as teams looked for advantages where they could get them. So, for example, when you think of a PF from the 80's you tend to think about a guy like James Worthy. He was fast, got up and down the court, and was a big time scorer, In the early 90's you saw teams counter that with players like Charles Oakley. The rules allowed a guy like Oakley to beat up on a guy like Worthy, which helped to lower scoring. 

It's similar, I think, to watching Tom Crean's pace heavy teams play WIsconsin. Wisconsin slows the game down, taking away that advantage we conceivably got by playing fast. That happened across the league in the 90's. Then the NBA changed a few rules, like hand checking, and put greater focus on calling fouls in the paint, and voila - PF's today are more like Worthy again and less like Oakley.

That is all complete conjecture, and could be 100% wrong, but it sounds right to me.

[IU Scott]

10 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

What changed?

I the 90's they were able to hand check and they did not call every little touch foul  Also to me the difference in the NBA from the 80's  to now is that there are a lot more players who should not be in the league because of expansion.  Also the NBA is a lot younger today than it was in the past where players come into the league ready to play because they normally stayed in college for 3 or 4 years.

[FW_Hoosier]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I the 90's they were able to hand check and they did not call every little touch foul  Also to me the difference in the NBA from the 80's  to now is that there are a lot more players who should not be in the league because of expansion.

This last sentence is ridiculous.  I’ve watched games from the 80s, and there were a ton of dudes that played back then that would get run off the court right now.  Today’s players are way more skilled and athletic.

[Hoosierhoopster]

37 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I think you are thinking more from the 90's with the Knicks and Pistons than the 80's where the pace was very fast.  I don't know if you watched the NBA from then but it was a free flowing and an up tempo league at that time with teams like the show time Lakers.

I'm not sure why you went back to the 80s, there's no question that today's NBA game is faster and scoring higher than it has for decades, regardless if you can find an exception in a year. Not sure what your point is, the NBA obviously changed the rules to allow more scoring and a faster pace than it has been for many years.

[IU Scott]

Just now, Hoosierhoopster said:

I'm not sure why you went back to the 80s, there's no question that today's NBA game is faster and scoring higher than it has for decades, regardless if you can find an exception in a year. Not sure what your point is, the NBA obviously changed the rules to allow more scoring and a faster pace than it has been for many years.

I showed you that is not true because in the 80's the pace and scoring were higher.  I just use that year because it was 30 years so I thought that was a good guage but I would bet if I went back to all the years in that decade you would see the same thing.

[FW_Hoosier]

Everyone that thinks players had it so much tougher in the 90s needs to read this:

https://cavsnation.com/fan-makes-hilarious-nsfw-thread-competition-michael-jordan-played/

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I showed you that is not true because in the 80's the pace and scoring were higher.  I just use that year because it was 30 years so I thought that was a good guage but I would bet if I went back to all the years in that decade you would see the same thing.

What isn't true? What is your point? 

Here's what I typed:

"There's no question that the freedom today's guards get would make stopping guys like MJ and I Thomas, and frankly Reggie, impossible. It's always a losing battle to try to compare different eras because players are faster and stronger (yes, they are stronger, the weight training/fitness/diets/etc. have players stronger today) and the rules are different, but there's really no question that today's rules have freed up the guards to allow higher scoring and a faster pace, as that's what the fans generally want, and that would certainly have allowed guys like MJ to thrive even more (and I would LOVE to see Reggie in today's game)."

What isn't true?

[IU Scott]

What is not true is that scoring and pace is way higher today than it was in the past.

80-81 108.1 per game

81-82 108.6 per game

82-83 108.5 per game

83-84 110.1 per game

84-85 110.8 per game

85-86 110.2 per game

87-88 108.2 per game

88-89 109.2 per game

To me it shows that scoring was higher in the 80's than today with a lot harder rules to play I for offensive players.

[Danomatic]

Today’s game is more perimeter oriented than any previous generation. The brand is more entertaining because of the flow(excluding Showtime Lakers). But that isn’t to take away from the previous greats... in fact, I’d argue that the late 80’s and 90’s were indeed the best years of the NBA. Players were more cut throat. If you were driving to the basket, you could count on getting hammered. Detroit’s Bad Boys and Michael Jordan began to evolve the game and started the transformation to what it ultimately is today. Spectators want offense, dunks, three pointers etc. They could care less about defense, until their team is playing in meaningful games. Nobody will ever be able to persuade me that Michael Jordan isn’t the greatest to ever play the game. My favorites were/are Michael, Magic and Bird. There are players that dominate each generation and every generation claims that there era was the best, but I believe that you have to be objective. You have to look at what today’s players are provided that past generations were not. After all, it’s all in good fun and to each their own. 

[cybergates]

15 hours ago, Candystripe said:

The Pacers are the Purdue of the NBA- no banners. As for when the greatest player of all time retires, it doesn't matter who replaces him. We have a championship and a dominance over the Eastern Conference that is historic. 

Historic Eastern Conference dominance belongs to LeBron not Cleveland. Cleveland sucked @$$ for years before LeBron and while he was in Miami. Speaking of which how did you react to him leaving and coming back? Love how the Cleveland fans burned his jersey then welcomed him back with open arms.

[Hoosierhoopster]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

What is not true is that scoring and pace is way higher today than it was in the past.

80-81 108.1 per game

81-82 108.6 per game

82-83 108.5 per game

83-84 110.1 per game

84-85 110.8 per game

85-86 110.2 per game

87-88 108.2 per game

88-89 109.2 per game

To me it shows that scoring was higher in the 80's than today with a lot harder rules to play I for offensive players.

Why are you defining the past as the 1980s? I said " today's rules have freed up the guards to allow higher scoring and a faster pace." That's clearly true -- that was precisely the reason for the rules changes.

So looking past the 1980s , there were rules changes after that slowed the game and scoring. 

93-94: 101.5

94-95: 101.4

95-96: 99.5

96-97: 96.9

97-98: 95.6

98-99: 91.6

99-00: 97.5

00-01: 94.8

01-02: 95.5

02-03: 95.1

03-04: 93.4

then 97's, 98's, and 100's until

13-14 101 to increasing each year to last year's 106.3 

The League has rules changes over time which decrease or increase game flow, tempo, speed and scoring. That obviously happened most recently to address the low scoring beginning in the mid-90s.

For the extreme flip side, in 66-67 the scoring average was 117.4 ppg

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

 

[Danomatic]

30 minutes ago, cybergates said:

Historic Eastern Conference dominance belongs to LeBron not Cleveland. Cleveland sucked @$$ for years before LeBron and while he was in Miami. Speaking of which how did you react to him leaving and coming back? Love how the Cleveland fans burned his jersey then welcomed him back with open arms.

Actually, historic Eastern Conference dominance belonged to the Bulls, because they didn’t just play in it every single year... they actually won it every single year. The road in the East was ridiculously hard back then, too. The East from the Golden Era is what the West has been in the past 15 seasons. 

Seriously though, could you imagine if Jordan hadn’t been forced to step away and play baseball for nearly two seasons? Then the NBA ratings started trending down and the commish pleaded with him to come back early! Then the Bulls ownership became content with their second three peat, ultimately ending the dynasty... Jordan could’ve potentially won ten rings in a row!!! I’m 99.99% sure that he would’ve won eight consecutively.

 

[Hoosierhoopster]

3 minutes ago, Danomatic said:

Actually, historic Eastern Conference dominance belonged to the Bulls, because they didn’t just play in it every single year... they actually won it every single year. The road in the East was ridiculously hard back then, too. The East from the Golden Era is what the West has been in the past 15 seasons. 

Seriously though, could you imagine if Jordan hadn’t been forced to step away and play baseball for nearly two seasons? Then the NBA ratings started trending down and the commish pleaded with him to come back early! Then the Bulls ownership became content with their second three peat, ultimately ending the dynasty... Jordan could’ve potentially won ten rings in a row!!! I’m 99.99% sure that he would’ve won eight consecutively.

 

This is somewhat a matter of opinion, but I'll quibble a little here -- MJ never had beat a team like GS in the Finals. LBJ's/the Cav's win, coming back down 3-1, against that historic GS team, with more wins than any other team in League history, was special and I'd argue unprecedented not just for the come back from down 3-1 but because it was against that historic GS team, in the Finals. The EC was really tough in the 90s, but the teams the Bulls beat in the Finals? Good, but that GS team good? No, really can't say so.

[btownqb]

I'd love for Scott to just once say, "Wow, I love the change".... or "it was terrible back then" .... with any subject we discuss on here lol 

Not everything can be better "back in the day" then it is now. 

[cybergates]

21 minutes ago, Danomatic said:

Actually, historic Eastern Conference dominance belonged to the Bulls, because they didn’t just play in it every single year... they actually won it every single year. The road in the East was ridiculously hard back then, too. The East from the Golden Era is what the West has been in the past 15 seasons. 

Seriously though, could you imagine if Jordan hadn’t been forced to step away and play baseball for nearly two seasons? Then the NBA ratings started trending down and the commish pleaded with him to come back early! Then the Bulls ownership became content with their second three peat, ultimately ending the dynasty... Jordan could’ve potentially won ten rings in a row!!! I’m 99.99% sure that he would’ve won eight consecutively.

 

I wasn't saying LBJ had the greatest Eastern Conference dominance ever, just countering his claim of historic EC dominance by saying that 3 runs to the Finals isn't historic to me, but LBJ's 7 straight is. 

The Bulls certainly had a historic run, but I disagree that the Bulls would have won anywhere close to 10 years in a row. After both 3 peats, MJ was drained from playing so many games at his level in that timespan. The NBA season is long and then having to play more games to win a championship eventually would have wore him out. The Pacers almost took them out in 98 and even as a Pacer fan, the Bulls team was better. If they weren't coming off of two championship lengthened seasons, I think they could have handled the Pacers more easily.

Plus so many other variables like injuries and personalities are completely unable to be accounted for. If Jordan didn't retire, the team in 96 that won 72 games may have looked drastically different. Maybe they don't get Rodman since they don't need to put up with his antics coming off 5 championships in a row. Maybe Pippen or Jordan gets hurt in 94 or 95 and never fully recovers. Stuff like that.

Boston before my day would have the claim to most historic EC (and NBA for that matter) dominance of all-time. They've won the most NBA and EC championships and had runs before my time and in the 80's.

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I'd love for Scott to just once say, "Wow, I love the change".... or "it was terrible back then" .... with any subject we discuss on here lol 

Not everything can be better "back in the day" then it is now. 

Actually I think Football and baseball are way better today than it was in the past.  I just feel like the game of basketball is not even close to what it was back in the day.  The college game is a lot weaker because of kids leaving early with the one and done rule.  Players  that UK and Duke  gets now would stay 3 or 4 years and wouldn't you think that would make the college game better.  In the NBA having younger players and with expansion it totally diluted the product we see.  Players today are way more athletic and are in better shape but that does not mean they are better basketball players.

[btownqb]

26 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Actually I think Football and baseball are way better today than it was in the past.  I just feel like the game of basketball is not even close to what it was back in the day.  The college game is a lot weaker because of kids leaving early with the one and done rule.  Players  that UK and Duke  gets now would stay 3 or 4 years and wouldn't you think that would make the college game better.  In the NBA having younger players and with expansion it totally diluted the product we see.  Players today are way more athletic and are in better shape but that does not mean they are better basketball players.

I don't think college is weaker because of the quality of players. I think they are more spread out then before. It's way more balanced then before. 

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

I don't think college is weaker because of the quality of players. I think they are more spread out then before. It's way more balanced then before. 

I don't agree with this at all.  Players like Ewing, Bird, Olguawan, Drexler, Duncan, Robinson and many more all time great players stayed 4 years so teams were able to to gel together over time.  Also with players staying longer the less likely that a team would get all the great players in every class.  Say you wanted to go to Duke back in the early 90's and you were a forward would you go there is you knew that Laettner and Hill was going to be there for 4 years.  To me the talent was dispersed a lot more back in the 80's and 90's.among the major conference teams.

[Danomatic]

2 hours ago, cybergates said:

I wasn't saying LBJ had the greatest Eastern Conference dominance ever, just countering his claim of historic EC dominance by saying that 3 runs to the Finals isn't historic to me, but LBJ's 7 straight is. 

The Bulls certainly had a historic run, but I disagree that the Bulls would have won anywhere close to 10 years in a row. After both 3 peats, MJ was drained from playing so many games at his level in that timespan. The NBA season is long and then having to play more games to win a championship eventually would have wore him out. The Pacers almost took them out in 98 and even as a Pacer fan, the Bulls team was better. If they weren't coming off of two championship lengthened seasons, I think they could have handled the Pacers more easily.

Plus so many other variables like injuries and personalities are completely unable to be accounted for. If Jordan didn't retire, the team in 96 that won 72 games may have looked drastically different. Maybe they don't get Rodman since they don't need to put up with his antics coming off 5 championships in a row. Maybe Pippen or Jordan gets hurt in 94 or 95 and never fully recovers. Stuff like that.

Boston before my day would have the claim to most historic EC (and NBA for that matter) dominance of all-time. They've won the most NBA and EC championships and had runs before my time and in the 80's.

Oh, I completely understand and was speaking speculatively. I wasn’t arguing against you, just another counter to Candystripe’s post. And I agree about the variables and countless other what if’s... I was just stating that those Bulls were as dominant as any team that I’ve ever watched play the game.

I'm also a Pacers fan, fwiw. 

[btownqb]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I don't agree with this at all.  Players like Ewing, Bird, Olguawan, Drexler, Duncan, Robinson and many more all time great players stayed 4 years so teams were able to to gel together over time.  Also with players staying longer the less likely that a team would get all the great players in every class.  Say you wanted to go to Duke back in the early 90's and you were a forward would you go there is you knew that Laettner and Hill was going to be there for 4 years.  To me the talent was dispersed a lot more back in the 80's and 90's.among the major conference teams.

Then why was there very, very little balance across the country?.. think mid majors man.