NBA Thread

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

I love a good mid-range jumper, but if you're looking at points scored in the past and comparing that to now, you have to account for the changed officiating. The kind of physical defense kids play today wasn't allowed back then. I would also argue overall defense is just better now, but I concede that is up for interpretation.

Or that offensive players were better back then. I don't see how defense is any better today than it use to be.  In my opinion the ability to hit open shots is way down.  Just take IU in the last few years we got a lot of open looks but couldn't hit them.  A really good basketball player should be able to hit the mid range shots well over 50 percent.

 

[HoosierDom]

Just now, IU Scott said:

Or that offensive players were better back then. I don't see how defense is any better today than it use to be.  In my opinion the ability to hit open shots is way down.  Just take IU in the last few years we got a lot of open looks but couldn't hit them.  A really good basketball player should be able to hit the mid range shots well over 50 percent.

 

I disagree, but that's not my actual point. My real point is that refs wouldn't let kids be that physical 30 years ago. It's a lot harder to hit a 12 footer when you're bumped hard on your way to your spot.

[Zlinedavid]

19 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I posted the scoring averages from every year in the NBA and the average score this year is not much higher if at all.

All I was doing was showing you the theory behind it. I’m not trying to say it’s the most effective or fun to watch, but it’s not just some cockamamie idea someone pulled out of their sphincter. There is actually some statistical backing. 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

I disagree, but that's not my actual point. My real point is that refs wouldn't let kids be that physical 30 years ago. It's a lot harder to hit a 12 footer when you're bumped hard on your way to your spot.

You make it sound like the college game is like the 99's NBA. It might be to physical in the big ten but the rest of college basketball isn't

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Why are they inferior it is just different.  If you scored points who cares how you score them.  I know this is a NBA thread but it drives me crazy when they say today's offense is more effecient I'm college.  How is it more effecient when you score less and shoot a lower percentage.  Teams today shoots more 3's and layups yet score less points. IU teams of the 80's to the mid 90's  scored 80+ points shooting a lot of 12-15 foot jumpers.

The style is more efficient. I can’t control for things like guys not staying college, the one and done, the officiating changes, the game being over-coached, but the current style teams strive to play in basketball is more efficient. 

[KoB2011]

45 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Or that offensive players were better back then. I don't see how defense is any better today than it use to be.  In my opinion the ability to hit open shots is way down.  Just take IU in the last few years we got a lot of open looks but couldn't hit them.  A really good basketball player should be able to hit the mid range shots well over 50 percent.

 

I can't imagine posting the link you did, and then sitting here with a straight face and saying this. The link you posted shows:

• Scoring per possession is at an all-time high in the NBA
• eFG% which weights 2s vs 3s, is at an all-time high in the NBA
• turnover percentages are at historical lows

The offense right now in the NBA is as good as it's ever been.Your link makes that clear, thank you for posting it!

[KoB2011]

43 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

You make it sound like the college game is like the 99's NBA. It might be to physical in the big ten but the rest of college basketball isn't

Your average college basketball game is closer to the 99 NBA than it is the 2022 NBA.

[IU Scott]

20 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The style is more efficient. I can’t control for things like guys not staying college, the one and done, the officiating changes, the game being over-coached, but the current style teams strive to play in basketball is more efficient. 

This what I don't understand is how is it more effecient.  To me effecient it means to be able to score more points in a lower amount of shots.  To me how is it more effecient if it doesn't lead to more scoring and better shooting percentages.

[KoB2011]

Just now, IU Scott said:

This what I don't understand is how is it more effecient.  To me effecient it means to be able to score more points in a lower amount of shots.  To me how is it more effecient if it doesn't lead to more scoring and better shooting percentages.

You are correct about efficiency you just apparently can't read your own link. 

[IU Scott]

9 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I can't imagine posting the link you did, and then sitting here with a straight face and saying this. The link you posted shows:

• Scoring per possession is at an all-time high in the NBA
• eFG% which weights 2s vs 3s, is at an all-time high in the NBA
• turnover percentages are at historical lows

The offense right now in the NBA is as good as it's ever been.Your link makes that clear, thank you for posting it!

I couldn't care less about those stats.  The object in basketball is to score more points than your opponent so all I care about is scoring average

[IU Scott]

Just now, KoB2011 said:

You are correct about efficiency you just apparently can't read your own link. 

Scoring average today is no better than it was in the 80's.  Why do people try to over complicate sports using all of yhes made up stats.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

I couldn't care less about those stats.  The object in basketball is to score more points than your opponent so all I care about is scoring average

Are you serious? This can't be serious.....

Scoring per possession is literally about who can score the most points.

eFG% is a very similar measure, it basically weights that a 3 is worth more than a 2....

And I gave turnovers just to show teams aren't playing some reckless style today....

Points per game are also as good as they've ever been. We just had our fourth consecutive year with scoring over 110 PPG for the first time ever, and when you compare it to other three year periods they did it in less possessions per game than those periods which means MORE SCORING ON LESS SHOTS. That's the definition of efficiency. 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Are you serious? This can't be serious.....

Scoring per possession is literally about who can score the most points.

eFG% is a very similar measure, it basically weights that a 3 is worth more than a 2....

And I gave turnovers just to show teams aren't playing some reckless style today....

Points per game are also as good as they've ever been. We just had our fourth consecutive year with scoring over 110 PPG for the first time ever, and when you compare it to other three year periods they did it in less possessions per game than those periods which means MORE SCORING ON LESS SHOTS. That's the definition of efficiency. 

I am serious I couldn't care less about those made up stats. Scoring average and shooting percentage is the only thing that matters. Where differ is that you think going 10-30 is as good as going 15-30 fron2 which I totally disagree with. What I see is 5 more miss shots that can lead to more easy points for the opponent.  It is easier to play defense after your shot goes through the basket.

I just don't get people wanting to make sports more than what it needs to be.  There is no need for these analytics which is leading to a worse product on the court.

 

[IU Scott]

10 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Are you serious? This can't be serious.....

Scoring per possession is literally about who can score the most points.

eFG% is a very similar measure, it basically weights that a 3 is worth more than a 2....

And I gave turnovers just to show teams aren't playing some reckless style today....

Points per game are also as good as they've ever been. We just had our fourth consecutive year with scoring over 110 PPG for the first time ever, and when you compare it to other three year periods they did it in less possessions per game than those periods which means MORE SCORING ON LESS SHOTS. That's the definition of efficiency. 

Might want to look at the scoring average because from 60-72 every year the average was over 110

My lady thing in this is of you enjoy this product and thinks it is better that is all that should matter to you.  If I think the product is inferior to the past that shod all that matters to me.  Neither one of us are right or wrong because all of this is opinions.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by IU Scott

[KoB2011]

13 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Might want to look at the scoring average because from 60-72 every year the average was over 110

Sure, you got me there. They shot 45% with no three point line, but yes, scoring was high....

13 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Neither one of us are right or wrong because all of this is opinions.

 

No, you can't bring up historical stats then call it an opinion. What you enjoy is an opinion, what is more efficient is not. 

[rico]

6 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Might want to look at the scoring average because from 60-72 every year the average was over 110

My lady thing in this is of you enjoy this product and thinks it is better that is all that should matter to you.  If I think the product is inferior to the past that shod all that matters to me.  Neither one of us are right or wrong because all of this is opinions.

 

You were watching the NBA from 1960-1972?   

[IU Scott]

2 hours ago, rico said:

You were watching the NBA from 1960-1972?   

No, not the point

[rico]

37 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

No, not the point

TBH, I really have no clue to what your point is.  Way too many variables to be comparing generations 50 years apart.  

[NotIThatLives]

10 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I am serious I couldn't care less about those made up stats. Scoring average and shooting percentage is the only thing that matters. Where differ is that you think going 10-30 is as good as going 15-30 fron2 which I totally disagree with. What I see is 5 more miss shots that can lead to more easy points for the opponent.  It is easier to play defense after your shot goes through the basket.

I just don't get people wanting to make sports more than what it needs to be.  There is no need for these analytics which is leading to a worse product on the court.

 

I hope this doesn't give you a stroke but there are statistics for shots made after a miss versus shots made after a made basket.

No one has to make them up either they actually happen in the flow of the game.

But you do bring up a good point about ease of setting up defense after a made basket.  

For all the skill we hear about with this new breed of players, you would think if they are only shooting layups and threes their 2 point % would be in the 70's but yet its in the 40's.  I think we have more athletes and less skill across the board outside of some of the freaks.

[IU Scott]

47 minutes ago, rico said:

TBH, I really have no clue to what your point is.  Way too many variables to be comparing generations 50 years apart.  

He said the last 4 years were the first time in NBA history that the scoring average were over 110.  I just pointed out that is not true.

[btownqb]

39 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

I hope this doesn't give you a stroke but there are statistics for shots made after a miss versus shots made after a made basket.

No one has to make them up either they actually happen in the flow of the game.

But you do bring up a good point about ease of setting up defense after a made basket.  

For all the skill we hear about with this new breed of players, you would think if they are only shooting layups and threes their 2 point % would be in the 70's but yet its in the 40's.  I think we have more athletes and less skill across the board outside of some of the freaks.

Less skill? 

There were a lot of guys like KD and AD with that type of skill before? Less skill compared to when? 

[btownqb]

11 hours ago, IU Scott said:

This what I don't understand is how is it more effecient.  To me effecient it means to be able to score more points in a lower amount of shots.  To me how is it more effecient if it doesn't lead to more scoring and better shooting percentages.

YOU GOT IT!! 

[btownqb]

There is simply no way shape or form you could have watched basketball in the 90s or early 2000s and think what we see now is less skilled. There has never been more skill in basketball. 

Not one dimensional guys like Reggie Miller, Dale Davis, etc. 

Reggie Miller is also my favorite all time basketball player, but that dude had one skill. (outside of pissing the other team off). 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by btownqb

[IU Scott]

2 minutes ago, btownqb said:

There is simply no way shape or form you could have watched basketball in the 90s or early 2000s and think what we see now is less skilled. There has never been more skill in basketball. 

Not one dimensional guys like Reggie Miller, Dale Davis, etc. 

Reggie Miller is also my favorite all time basketball player, but that dude had one skill. (outside of pissing the other team off). 

 

I think most is saying the 80's we're the best decade to look at in comparison.

[btownqb]

Basketball and football have gotten so much better in the last 15 years it is incredible.