Today vs. Yesterday

[rico]

I saw this being talked about in the Romeo thread.  So I started this one to discuss how the CBB game has changed.

IMO the biggest difference from the 70's to now is the attire.  Back in the day you wore short shorts and tall socks.  Now you wear long shorts and short socks.  It has changed the game!

[5fouls]

It goes without saying that the three point shot and the shot clock have forever changed the game from the one I knew growing up in the 70's and early 80's.  As far as which one of those had the biggest impact, I'll go with the three point shot.  The shot clock definitely impacted teams that liked to slow it down,but most teams still looked to score within 30-40 seconds anyway.  Where it has it's biggest impact is at the end of games.  No more 4-corners over the last 3-4 minutes.  Meanwhile, the 3-pointer has evolved over the years to the point where it is the most desired shot to take outside of a fast break layup.  Take it back out of the game and chaos would ensue.

Great idea for a thread by the way.   

[rico]

With the advent of the 3-point shot, to me, the guys today have lost the art of the mid range jumper.  And I always think back to that '77 UNLV team.  No shot clock, no three point line......and they averaged over a 100 ppg.  6 guys averaged double figures, with two more knocking on the door.

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, rico said:

I saw this being talked about in the Romeo thread.  So I started this one to discuss how the CBB game has changed.

IMO the biggest difference from the 70's to now is the attire.  Back in the day you wore short shorts and tall socks.  Now you wear long shorts and short socks.  It has changed the game!

To me the shot clock especially moving it to 30 seconds has changed the game. I wouldn't want to go back to no shot clock because of the last 5 minutes of the game was just teams holding the ball.  To me the shot clock has made teams shot selection go way down and teams having to take a lot more contested shots at the end of the shot clock.  What some doesn't realize is that scoring averages actually have went down since the implemented the shot clock.  Teams back then took better shots  because they were able to work for the shot they wanted.  Also today with the new metrics of just taking layups or 3's have hurt the game as well.  I miss seeing guys able to hit those 10-15 foot jump shots that were a good percentage shots.  I remember guys like Henderson and Anderson hitting those baseline jumpers all day long.  To me hitting 6-10 good shots is better than hitting 4-10 3's.  They produce the same amount of points but those 2 extra misses give the opponents extra possessions to score.

[rico]

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me the shot clock especially moving it to 30 seconds has changed the game. I wouldn't want to go back to no shot clock because of the last 5 minutes of the game was just teams holding the ball.  To me the shot clock has made teams shot selection go way down and teams having to take a lot more contested shots at the end of the shot clock.  What some doesn't realize is that scoring averages actually have went down since the implemented the shot clock.  Teams back then took better shots  because they were able to work for the shot they wanted.  Also today with the new metrics of just taking layups or 3's have hurt the game as well.  I miss seeing guys able to hit those 10-15 foot jump shots that were a good percentage shots.  I remember guys like Henderson and Anderson hitting those baseline jumpers all day long.  To me hitting 6-10 good shots is better than hitting 4-10 3's.  They produce the same amount of points but those 2 extra misses give the opponents extra possessions to score.

Good post and I concur.

[IU Scott]

Also I feel like the 30 second clock takes away the diversity of the game.  To me most teams look a like and lay the same kind of game. Use to you would have teams that was uptempo and fast break teams.  You had teams to slow the game down so they were able to compete with the bigger teams.  Another thing about today's game I really don't care for is that most teams run the same kind of offense.  You mainly see the pick and roll or the dribble drive offense and don't see much ball or player movement.  As a player who shot 3's I love the seeing great shooting but I do miss seeing low post players who could play with their back to the basket.  I miss players like Ewing or Olguwaun who you could throw the ball into and expect a score.  Players today if you throw it inside they will still turn to the basket and drive the ball instead of playing with their back to the basket.

[FKIM01]

To me, the biggest change in the game is how much fouling is allowed by the officials.  Back in the '80's-'90's, 80-90 points was the norm.  Players knew fouls would be called so the defense was kept much more honest without all of the hand-checking and jersey grabbing. If fouls were called today like they were back then, you'd have most players fouling out until they adjusted.  It's no coincidence that Wisconsin started getting better when officials quit calling fouls.

[Drroogh]

I remember 3-4 years ago ESPN did an interview with Coach K and Coach Knight. They reminisced fondly of the old days, toward the end of the interview the moderator asked them if there was anything about today's game they preferred to the old days. Dead silence! Finally RMK spoke up and said the silence is telling isn't it. He said I think the game today has changed into a game of athletes playing basketball, instead of basketball players playing basketball.

I agree!

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

The two point jumper is a “lost art” because the three point shot rendered it the least efficient shot one can take. 

[IU Scott]

56 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

I remember 3-4 years ago ESPN did an interview with Coach K and Coach Knight. They reminisced fondly of the old days, toward the end of the interview the moderator asked them if there was anything about today's game they preferred to the old days. Dead silence! Finally RMK spoke up and said the silence is telling isn't it. He said I think the game today has changed into a game of athletes playing basketball, instead of basketball players playing basketball.

I agree!

Totally agree with those comments

[IU Scott]

20 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

The two point jumper is a “lost art” because the three point shot rendered it the least efficient shot one can take. 

To me if you hit it, how can it be inefficient. The more possessions you score on the less chance the other team gets out and run off a miss shot.  To me these new metrics for sports are just made up stats that a bunch of nerds has come up with.  They have no clue what good basketball looks like and probably never played a game in their life.

[FKIM01]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

To me if you hit it, how can it be inefficient. The more possessions you score on the less chance the other team gets out and run off a miss shot.  To me these new metrics for sports are just made up stats that a bunch of nerds has come up with.  They have no clue what good basketball looks like and probably never played a game in their life.

The metrics are simply this...if a player can hit, say 40% of 3-pointers and 50% of long 2-pointers, he will score more with the same number of shots taken from behind the line.  Let's say he takes 10 shouts.  With long 2-pointers, he scores 10 points.  With the same number of 3-pointers, he scores 12 points.  Call me a nerd, but that math is  pretty simple.  Sure...hitting 65% of layups/dunks is more efficient than either scenario (13 points), but it's pretty easy to prove that long 2-pointers make the least sense, statistically speaking.

-nerd out-

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me if you hit it, how can it be inefficient. The more possessions you score on the less chance the other team gets out and run off a miss shot.  To me these new metrics for sports are just made up stats that a bunch of nerds has come up with.  They have no clue what good basketball looks like and probably never played a game in their life.

Math is made up now. Okay...

[IU Scott]

10 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

The metrics are simply this...if a player can hit, say 40% of 3-pointers and 50% of long 2-pointers, he will score more with the same number of shots taken from behind the line.  Let's say he takes 10 shouts.  With long 2-pointers, he scores 10 points.  With the same number of 3-pointers, he scores 12 points.  Call me a nerd, but that math is  pretty simple.  Sure...hitting 65% of layups/dunks is more efficient than either scenario (13 points), but it's pretty easy to prove that long 2-pointers make the least sense, statistically speaking.

-nerd out-

6-10 on two point shots -12 points

4-10 on three point shots- 12 points

The difference is that you scored on 6 possessions instead of 4.  that gives the other team 2 more possessions to out score you.  I bet Henderson, Anderson and Cheaney hit around 60% of their shot sots from 10-15 feet on the baseline.  I am not talking about long two point shots I am talking about the good shot from the baseline or wing from 10-15 feet.  You just don't see players using these easy shots anymore and to me that really hurts the flow of the game.

[IU Scott]

7 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Math is made up now. Okay...

Made up is the wrong word but I just don't agree with how it is used.  Saying taking bad 3's is better than taking a good 10-15 foot shots is just wrong in my opinion.  If you use all the parts of the floor you will be harder to guard and be more efficient.

[Drroogh]

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

6-10 on two point shots -12 points

4-10 on three point shots- 12 points

The difference is that you scored on 6 possessions instead of 4.  that gives the other team 2 more possessions to out score you.  I bet Henderson, Anderson and Cheaney hit around 60% of their shot sots from 10-15 feet on the baseline.  I am not talking about long two point shots I am talking about the good shot from the baseline or wing from 10-15 feet.  You just don't see players using these easy shots anymore and to me that really hurts the flow of the game.

Agree, it's not just about the 12 points! Also, I believe the mid range shots are much more available as uncontested shots. Good IQ players take the best shots that the defense gives them. Mid range jumpers seem to always be open the way defense is played now a days.

[IU Scott]

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/indiana/1993.html

These re the stats from 92-93 team which was out last great team.  Look at how efficient that team was and it was because they took the best shots available.  They were in the top 5 in both 2pt and 3t percentages but they were in the top 5 in 2pt attempts but was 97th in 3point attempts.  This team averaged 86.5 points even though they did not adhere to todays theories on offense.

[FKIM01]

2 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

Agree, it's not just about the 12 points! Also, I believe the mid range shots are much more available as uncontested shots. Good IQ players take the best shots that the defense gives them. Mid range jumpers seem to always be open the way defense is played now a days.

IF the mid-range 2 is available, sure.  I don't see the same defense you all are seeing though.  Defenses only camp out at the 3-point line when it's obvious that (a) the team playing from behind has no choice but to shoot 3's or (b) the team being guarded takes a very high percentage of 3's. Any coach worth his salary will tell his players to take the OPEN shot.  Statistically, the numbers don't bear out teams in general taking high percentages of 3 pointers and/or shooting the 3 poorly enough compared to 2-pointers to say that it's a bad idea to shoot from behind the line when available.

[IU Scott]

Isn't it only logical if the other teams know that teams will only shoot 3's or layups that they will setup their defenses to stop those shots.  Also since nobody really tries to shoot the mid range anymore how would you know if the defenses are setup to stop those shots. Just go watch some games from the 80's and 90's and see how much more free flowing the offenses were then.  You were a lot harder to guard when you used the whole courts instead of limiting yourselves to the 3's or layups.

[FKIM01]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Isn't it only logical if the other teams know that teams will only shoot 3's or layups that they will setup their defenses to stop those shots.  Also since nobody really tries to shoot the mid range anymore how would you know if the defenses are setup to stop those shots. Just go watch some games from the 80's and 90's and see how much more free flowing the offenses were then.  You were a lot harder to guard when you used the whole courts instead of limiting yourselves to the 3's or layups.

That assumes teams won't adjust. Teams do adjust, but I'd tell you as an aside that I don't believe for a minute that Cheaney and company would shoot nearly as efficiently today considering all the fouling that is allowed.  I saw an Alabama defender knock Trae Young a foot sideways while he was in mid-air shooting yesterday with no call.  That, as much as anything hurts shooting efficiency from what I see personally. We all have opinions on the reasons, but for me, I hate the way officials allow defenders to foul in today's game.

[Drroogh]

I agree that officiating s%&@! now adays, but we had TV Ted and Ed Hightower back in the day as well! I wonder if it's also part of how the game has changed in that players now are much more physical than before and not just because they can get away with it???

[rico]

I am surprised nobody has touched on the double bonus.

[IU Scott]

Another thing that drives me nuts is watching teams trying to run the shot clock down when leading in the last couple of minutes.  Instead of just running your offense and being patient they just give it to the point guard and letting him dribble the clock down to about 7 seconds.  Doing this you are going to have to put up a bad contested shot most of the time.  Why not run your motion offense that way you are moving the defense and will be able to get better shots.

[3Ballin]

1 hour ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

The two point jumper is a “lost art” because the three point shot rendered it the least efficient shot one can take. 

You mean other than an uncontested 15 footer while the clock is stopped....right? 

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

2 minutes ago, 3Ballin said:

You mean other than an uncontested 15 footer while the clock is stopped....right?

Are you talking about 1 point free throws?