Attn: Bricklayer - Bill Simmons on "small-ball"

[PixelPusher]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060517


Installing the NBA upgrade

By Bill Simmons
Page 2

The most shocking television moment of May sweeps didn't involve Terry failing to make the final two on "Survivor," the gang finally escaping on "Prison Break," a model opening a suitcase without mugging for the cameras on "Deal or No Deal," or even Jack Bauer never realizing that he could just play the Logan/Henderson tape on somebody's voicemail at CTU.

Stephen Dunn/Getty Images
How fast is Devin Harris? The cameras can't even keep up with him.

Nope, the shocker happened in Game 4 of a spectacular Mavs-Spurs series. With 3:30 remaining in overtime, Tony Parker missed a little bunny to tie the game. DeSagana Diop snagged the rebound and swung it to Devin Harris, who shifted into fifth gear like somebody activated a jet pack on his back. Even though four Spurs had a head start on him, Harris roared past them like a Kentucky Derby horse. Wooooooooooooosh. Not even TNT could keep up with him; Harris went coast-to-coast so abruptly its midcourt camera couldn't move right to left fast enough.
And maybe TNT missed Harris' layup, but no true basketball fan missed its significance: After 13 up-and-down years, the NBA finally found its way again. Teams are scoring. Teams are running. Teams are attacking. The product works. It's as simple as that. Not even the cameras can keep up.
Just three years ago, I wrote a column declaring that we would never again witness anything like Game 4 of the 1984 Finals, an epic battle that featured two transcendent rivalries (Bird-Magic, Celtics-Lakers), nine future Hall of Famers, two deep benches, dozens of fast-break baskets, three separate altercations (including McHale's famous clothesline) and four of the uniquely great offensive players in NBA history (Kareem, McHale, Bird and Magic). Both teams attacked whenever they could and took quality shots on nearly every halfcourt possession. Throw in a storybook ending in overtime (Bird nailing a turnaround over Magic for the clinching hoop) and you couldn't ask for a more hard-fought and entertaining basketball game.

More Stories • Darcy: Whine country
• Neel: Daily Dime
• Complete NBA Playoffs coverage As I argued in the column, the league peaked as a product that day. Over the next two decades, overexpansion (which eliminated roster depth) and skyrocketing salaries for younger players (which eliminated their incentive to keep improving) inadvertently diluted the quality of play. Michael Jordan's meteoric rise spawned a generation of copycat superstars who valued one-on-one basketball over team play (with none of them possessing his all-around game). The success of the Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks inadvertently spawned a wave of defensive teams, which slowed games down, limited possessions and pulled the clutch-and-shove routine with elite offensive players. And worst of all, fast breaks went the way of tight shorts, Converse high-tops and wispy mustaches -- teams weren't running enough, and when they did run, their open-floor instincts were so rusty they ended up looking like a bunch of middle-aged guys floundering in a Tuesday night pickup game.

Jesse D. Garrabrant/Getty Images
An action shot from the 66-64 Celtics/Pistons playoff from 2002 -- a game that almost made Bill Simmons give up the NBA.

The whole mind-set needed to change. For me, the low point happened after Game 3 of the Detroit-Boston conference semifinals in 2002: I still remember leaving the Fleet Center after a hideous 66-64 Celtics win, slinking from the building with everyone else, feeling mortified that the sport had been bastardized to that degree. We were supposed to celebrate ... that? Really? When the Americans crapped the bed in Athens two summers later, embarrassed by less talented countries who understood the value of the slash-and-kick game and moving without the ball, that was another seminal moment. We were headed in the wrong direction. That much was clear.
Two years later? Devin Harris shows up four Spurs and a TNT cameraman. And it wasn't the play itself as much as the symbolism involved: Harris never hesitated, not for a second. He attacked. Maybe the cameras couldn't keep up, but eventually, they will.
So how did we get here? It would be easy just to credit the influx of talent over the past decade or so. The league hasn't been this loaded since 1991, paced by an eclectic, compelling group of marquee players (LeBron, Wade, Duncan, Nowitzki, Kobe, Nash and Shaq, six of whom remain alive in the playoffs), with a wave of All-Star caliber players (Brand, Yao, Parker, Billups, Hamilton, Arenas, Carter, Marion, Ginobili, McGrady, Pierce, Garnett, Artest and others) and rising young stars (Hinrich, Howard, Paul, Anthony, Bosh, Stoudemire and others) to complement them.
But that's not that answer. After two depressing playoff seasons (2003 and 2004) sent casual fans scurrying away, the league made a conscious decision to change the overall mentality of the game itself. And this wasn't like Lorne Michaels running an occasional "SNL Digital Short" to make it seem like "Saturday Night Live" was still hip; this was an honest effort by the NBA to change the dynamic of games and make them more appealing to watch. Here's how they did it:
1. They sped up the game by giving teams only eight seconds to get the ball over midcourt and resetting the shot clock to 14 seconds in certain situations (after a foul, a kicked ball, an illegal defense, and so on).
2. They started whistling players for the shoving/grabbing/clutching/mugging crap that had been plaguing the league since the Riley/Daly days (I still think Riley should serve some prison time though).
3. They cracked down on flagrant fouls -- almost too much, actually -- allowing players to attack the rim without worrying about being splattered against the basket support.
4. They relaxed the illegal defense rules, allowing smaller teams to use soft zones and to double-team scoring threats more easily (also allowing teams to play more scorers at the same time, since they couldn't be as much of a liability defensively).
5. Referees were ordered to allow moving picks as long as the player setting the pick didn't stick a knee out to trip the defender.
The last one was an unannounced, under-the-table rule change that Team Stern will deny in public to the death, much like Marcellus and Butch always will deny what happened in Maynard's basement with Zed and the Gimp. But it happened. I have more than 200 games on DVD, including just about every relevant game from 1984 to 2004, and players were never allowed to set moving picks before last season. They had to approach the dribbler, come to a full stop, and remain still as the dribbler made his move. Watch an old Jazz game some time -- remember how Stockton and Malone were considered the masters of the pick-and-roll? Well, the Mailman held those picks every time. He never moved. If he did, they whistled him.

 

[PixelPusher]

(the rest of the article)

Andrew D. Bernstein/Getty Images
With a guy like Boris Diaw setting moving screens for him, Nash suddenly became a lethal player -- and two-time MVP.

Now? You don't have to stop -- you can run over, pretend you're setting a high screen and basically careen into the defender. You can pretend to stop and continue moving your feet to sideswipe the defender as he's stepping around you (a Tyson Chandler specialty). You can even set a screen, make a 180-degree turn, chase the defender, then clip him with a moving pick a second time (a Yao Ming classic). All of these moves are legal in a wink-wink way. Boris Diaw raised it to another level -- instead of setting the screen on Nash's defender, sometimes he runs next to Nash, then quickly cuts toward the basket and "accidentally" picks off Nash's defender at full speed, almost like a wide receiver cutting across the field and picking off someone else's cornerback.
I know this all sounds mildly confusing, but the high screen has become the single most important play in basketball. Four teams execute it correctly (by bending the fake rules that aren't actually in place): Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio and Detroit. Gee, what do those four teams have in common? And while we're here, if you ever wondered how Steve Nash played for eight years and never even made second-team All-NBA, then became a two-time MVP in the blink of an eye, it wasn't just because of his hair and his skin color, or because he found a coach who understood how to build a team around him. Nash took advantage of the aforementioned rules that made penetrating guards just as valuable as reliable low-post scorers (as we're seeing in this year's playoffs with Nash, Wade, Harris & Terry, Parker, Hinrich, Billups, even an old-timer like Sam Cassell).
Thanks to those rules, SmallBall has taken over the Western Conference playoffs this spring. Avery Johnson realized after one game that Dallas could beat the Spurs only by playing two point guards (Harris and Jason Terry) and exploiting San Antonio's shoddy perimeter defense; eventually, Gregg Popovich had no choice but to go small himself (even Big Shot Brob is riding the pine). The Suns-Clips series turned into a splendid SmallBall contest in Games 4 and 5, with the notable exception of the Chris Kaman parts (it's simply the wrong series for him, something Mike Dunleavy will probably realize around Game 12). Coincidentally -- or maybe, not coincidentally -- these have been two of the most entertaining and electric playoff series of the decade.
Which raises the million-dollar questions ...
Is this where we're headed? Are teams better off building for SmallBall over a conventional style? If you can play only five players, and you don't have an above-average center on your roster -- which most teams lack, by the way -- why not just play your best five guys regardless of position?
For instance, last summer's most important signing turned out to be Raja Bell, a much ridiculed move at the time. Remember? Twenty-five million for Raja Bell? What was Phoenix thinking? Actually, they were thinking that he's a great defender who makes 40 percent of his 3s. Perfect for them. So they started pursuing him on midnight, July 1, then overpaid to make sure they got him. Ten months later, he looked like an absolute bargain even before he saved their season Tuesday night. Meanwhile, the Zydrunas Ilgauskas contract (four years, $55 million) would have been fine in 1998, but it's a roster killer in 2006. Much like in real life, you can't survive with slow big guys anymore.
Just look at this year's draft. As recently as three years ago, LaMarcus Aldridge would have been the first pick, because, after all, you always take a good big man first, right? Not this year. LSU's Ty Thomas (a Marion-like forward) will be the first pick, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Aldridge and Adam Morrison (another player who would have been more effective five years ago) will drop out of the top three, whereas Brandon Roy (Washington's outstanding shooting guard) and UConn's Marcus Williams (yes, the Laptop Guy, as well as the only elite point guard in the draft) will end up going higher than people think (and doing better than people think). In the old days, you needed a franchise player to realistically contend for a title. Now? You need two penetrators (including an alpha dog), three or four shooters and two guys who can rebound and protect the rim. That's it. Just ask Phoenix.

Andrew D. Bernstein /Getty Images
The new breed of NBA player: quick point guards like Chris Paul will become even more valuable in the new-and-improved NBA.

It's a different world. Suddenly, Chris Paul and Devin Harris have more value than Chris Bosh and Andrew Bogut. Suddenly, a max contract for Ben Wallace doesn't make quite as much sense. Suddenly, Kirk Hinrich's ceiling has been raised from "multiple All-Star" to "potential three-time MVP." Suddenly, expensive, shoot-first point guards like Baron Davis and Stephon Marbury are untradeable unless you want someone else's junk back. Suddenly, you would be committed to an institution if you drafted Rafael Araujo over Andre Iguodala, and you would throw a three-day long party if Jameer Nelson fell to you at No. 20. Suddenly, it doesn't seem smart to trade Ben Gordon, Tyson Chandler and two lottery picks to Minnesota for Kevin Garnett with about 98,000 miles on his odometer. Suddenly, a team like the 2006 Dallas Mavericks can win an NBA title.
Back in April, I predicted the Mavs would lose to Detroit in the Finals. Now? I'm reconsidering. Can the Pistons really match baskets with the Mavs? How does Ben Wallace have an impact guarding Nowitzki 20 feet from the basket? Who does Rip Hamilton guard? Can the Pistons keep pulling that whole "fat cat" routine -- they assert their dominance one night, then relax the next, and they've been doing it since late January -- against a team as explosive as Dallas? And could the Mavs really end up becoming the first team to win a title solely with outside shooting since the '73 Knicks?
I think they can pull it off. In the meantime, let's kick back and savor a new era of professional hoops. Tuesday night, the Clips rallied from 19 points down in Phoenix by playing SmallBall and out-Phoenixing Phoenix (which should have happened from the opening tip, of course), eventually blowing a three-point lead with a foul to give and 3.6 seconds remaining in overtime, then losing a borderline Stomach Punch Game in double-OT. (Have I mentioned that Mike Dunleavy is coaching this series with both hands wrapped around his neck? I mentioned that, right?) But it was a phenomenally exciting game, and sometime during the night, I realized that this was the eighth or ninth ESPN classic-caliber playoff game of the spring. This can't be an accident.
So maybe it's time to recant my "There will never be another game like Game 4 of the 1984 Finals" proclamation from three years ago. Maybe there won't be another game with that kind of star power. Maybe Kareem and McHale would have sprung for 60 a night against these gimmicky small lineups. Heck, maybe McHale would have been imprisoned for what happened to Rambis nowadays. But Game 5 of the Clips-Suns series was nearly as dramatic, Game 4 of the Mavs-Spurs series was almost as well-played, and with the way these playoffs are going -- you have to go back to 1993 to find a spring with this many high-caliber games, and we're not even in Round 3 yet -- there's an outside chance that one of these games could rival the famous Game 4 in every category but "Hall of Famers on the floor."
One thing is for sure: I'll be watching. As Devin Harris proved on Monday night, with the New-And-Improved NBA, you never know what you might miss.
Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His new book "Now I Can Die In Peace is available on Amazon.com and in bookstores everywhere.

 

[Bricklayer]

Eh...as he often does, I believe Mr. Simmons is talking out of his *** here. And you can tell him I said so.

 

[Kings113]

Some interesting points, some nothing much. Still side w/ the more traditional route, but good to have a small group on your roster for versatility.

Intriguing times ahead, indeed.

 

[captain bill]

What does he have against Kareem? I clicked on one of his other articles, and the guy seems positively batty.

 

[bozzwell]

As usual, Simmons is trying very hard to be funny and cover too much ground with flimsy theories or analysis. OK, I'll give him funny, some of his comments in the past made me giggle uncontrollably, especially on the subject of NYK and Isiah Thomas. I always looked at his articles as entertainment and not information or analysis.

In this particular article, I think he is onto something, although we all may not agree with his conclusions/comments. The league has been tweaking the rules for years in order to improve/control the quality of the game and in response to direction that game was evolving into. The tin foil hat crowd would want you to believe that "the fix" is on, but in reality the league is protecting its investment and improving its product. Certainly, the last few rounds of rule tweaks and refereeing guidelines were meant to make the game be more attractive by aiding offense, but it takes a real leap of faith to suggest that relazing zone-D rules is meant to allow teams to play smaller (or softer?) line ups with players who are gifted on offense but not good man defenders (or just not big enough). If the league was capable of such forward thinking when it comes to rule tweaking there'd be no need for so much tweaking to begin with.

But most of all, Simmons pissed me off by bringing up, throughout the article, what was going to be my favorite topics for TDOS:

1. Post-MJ NBA and wannabe MJ's taking NBA few steps back in contrast to new breed of the stars (LBJ, Wade, Paul, Bosh, Howard, etc.).
2. KG's milage. He turned 30 today. He's been pro for 12 years. Is there a title left in him?
3. Is this play off fun or what? If neither Detroit nor SA win it, it will be some play off.
4. We need to see the rest of PO's but he does bring some interesting points on rule changes.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Little premature to be hearlding the joys of small ball espcially since most of the examples he gives are teams palying in the WAEAK brackets.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

3. Is this play off fun or what? If neither Detroit nor SA win it, it will be some play off.

They will be regardless; they already are.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Simmons is a comedian first, Boston homer second and sportswriter third but I think he raised some good points and I will freely admit my preference for the pre-MJ and MJ-wannabe NBA game to what we have now. The problem is that there's no guarantee any of these "new and improved NBA" teams will actually win this year. Dallas might be the closest but there's a lot of playoffs left to go.

 

[LPKingsFan]

True, we'll have to wait and see who emerges on top before making any final judgments. Still, his premise that the rules changes could usher in a new era where the old rules of winning don't apply could have some merit. Interesting--and as usual for Page 2--entertaining.

 

[4cwebb]

What does he have against Kareem? I clicked on one of his other articles, and the guy seems positively batty.

Die hard Celtics fan from the days of the Celtics - Lakers rivalry...I'm sure all such fans despise Kareem.

 

[4cwebb]

Simmons is a comedian first, Boston homer second and sportswriter third but I think he raised some good points and I will freely admit my preference for the pre-MJ and MJ-wannabe NBA game to what we have now. The problem is that there's no guarantee any of these "new and improved NBA" teams will actually win this year. Dallas might be the closest but there's a lot of playoffs left to go.

The weird thing about Dallas is that they are fielding a more traditional lineup than the Spurs these days, mainly because they play a traditional center at all times (Diop or Dampier). Going with two PGs isn't that big of a deal considering that none of the Spurs "little" guys can take their defenders into the post (Billups would be killing Terry or Harris in the post if the Pistons were playing against this lineup). Dirk is not a conventional PF, but he has the size for it. The Spurs, on the other hand, are trotting out Parker, Bowen, Manu and Finley alongside Duncan...nice to finally see Duncan play center after all these years.

 

[Venom]

Certainly, the last few rounds of rule tweaks and refereeing guidelines were meant to make the game be more attractive by aiding offense, but it takes a real leap of faith to suggest that relazing zone-D rules is meant to allow teams to play smaller (or softer?) line ups with players who are gifted on offense but not good man defenders (or just not big enough). If the league was capable of such forward thinking when it comes to rule tweaking there'd be no need for so much tweaking to begin with.

Stern absolutely relaxed the defensive rules so that overseas players could succeed, and to grow the game in international markets. This might open up some wounds, but is Peja better Petrovic? Or Dirk more talented than Kukoc? The big difference between these guys is the era they played in. It was hard for European players to find time with the mandatory man-to-man. They were offensively skilled, but complete defensive liabilities. It took a lot of hard work on their defensive games before guys like Petrovic and Kukoc could earn minutes in the NBA. Steve Nash, a two-time MVP, did not emerge until the defensive rules were changed. Stern has been quite vociferous on the fact that his top goal as commissioner is to develop the game overseas, and defensive changes reflect that. I don't think it's a coincidence that American viewership declined with the de-emphasis of defense. It's difficult for the American viewer to see players taking time off on one end of the court.

 

[Freakout]

I'll still take the slow it down and grind it out team over the run and gun. The thing is you have to have the versatility defensively from your perimeter defenders though. PHX/LA series should be a cake walk for LA due to Brand but the Clip's are playing pathetic defensively. Having a athletic 4 like Wilcox would be helpful right now.

 

[striker]

I agree with a fair amount of what Simmons said. You can't have the series of rules changes the NBA has introduced and not have it effect the way the games played. I'll say one thing, penetrating guards than can finish or find the open man are worth their weight in gold thes days.

 

[Bricklayer]

All of which is no doubt why the Suns are the only remaining team WITHOUT a monster in the middle, no?

As I mentioned -- talking out of his *** as usual. Meanwhile Shaq and Mourning are in the conference finals awaiting either Big Z or the Wallace Bros., Diop and Dampier are slamming around with Duncan, and Chris Kaman and Elton Brand are threatening to upset the Suns (the lone small ball exemplar who has struggled and been pushed to the max the whole playoffs).


People like Simmons are always looking for grand excuses for the accidents of the moment.


P.S. Dirk was excelling long before any defensive rules lapsed, and Drazen had very much emerged at a Pejaesque 20+ppg level before he passed away. In any case, it would be far more accurate to say the defensive rules got reset -- there is still FAR less offense in the league right now than there was at any point before the early 90s, and I'm afraid it was that descent into pushing and grabbing which helped CAUSE the exodus of the casual viewer, not the other way around.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Petrovic was really special and had he not left us so soon or been on a higher profile team he could have become a household name. Kukoc spent his prime NBA years as the 6th man on a championship team, I'm not sure how any rule changes would have impacted his game but it would be hard to steal the spotlight from Jordan, Pippen and Rodman.

 

[striker]

Dirk is not a monster in the middle. Dampier and Diop are playing because Duncan is a monster in the middle.but likelyy won't get a whiff of the floor if it ends up be a Suns - Mavs western conference finals because neither can punish the Suns at the offensive end. In the Cas - Pistons series Z has been ineffective. It would be interesting to see what happens if it ended up as a Suns - Heat series which I see as a possibility. If Suns could take the Heat forcing run and gun, high scoring games that would be a blow to traditional basketball. One thing about the NBA, teams copy winners.

 

[Venom]

P.S. Dirk was excelling long before any defensive rules lapsed, and Drazen had very much emerged at a Pejaesque 20+ppg level before he passed away. In any case, it would be far more accurate to say the defensive rules got reset -- there is still FAR less offense in the league right now than there was at any point before the early 90s, and I'm afraid it was that descent into pushing and grabbing which helped CAUSE the exodus of the casual viewer, not the other way around.

Dirk belongs entirely to the new era of the NBA. I don't think he would have been anything more than Kukoc if he had come along at that time. If Kukoc were 19 years old today, with the current rules, he'd be the #1 pick in the draft.

Drazen had to work hard on defense in order to get playing time. He had a difficult time sniffing the court for Portland. With today's rules, guys like Steve Nash, who play absolutely no defense, can be two-time MVPs.

The NBA was at its zenith during the MJ era of the early and mid 90s. Those teams played hard and those playoffs were battles. Compare the intensity and physicality of those games with the playoffs of today. And they played defense in the 80s. Perhaps you keep making this assertion that they did not, Brick, because of the showtime Lakers, but those games were physical battles. Nothing like the garbage we see today, where a "hard" foul earns a one-game suspension.

I think the NBA has bottomed out due to the overall lack of intensity, which is partly a result of the rules changes. Growing up, I remember the playoffs being about individual story arcs as the NBA moved towards a star dominated league. Every story needs a good guy and a bad guy. For a decade, half the country hated the Celtics and half the country hated the Lakers. It was a great story. We all hated the Pistons and the Knicks, and loved to see MJ vanquish them. Today, who's the bad guy? The Pistons, again, maybe. But who's the good guy? The Spurs? They're boring, no visible intensity, Manu flopping about like Deco. The only thing interesting about the Spurs is Parker's loudmouth girlfriend, and she's just annoying. The drama feels manufactured. When I watch a game, I feel like I'm seeing guy's paid an exhorbitant amount of money to only contribute on one end of the floor. It's boring.

I don't buy the argument that Americans love scoring. We love football, American football, a sport which often contributes low scoring games. A 21-7 game seems like a lot, but if it was soccer that would be a 3-1 game. The NFL has created rules, on and off the field, that insure a very intense product each and every week. When you turn on an NFL game you are guaranteed to see the very best football players on the planet play at the best of their abilities. You can't say that about the NBA, mostly because of their guaranteed contracts, but also due to the defensive rules changes. In the 80s and the MJ era we knew that those guys were giving a full effort, especially during the playoffs.

 

[Bricklayer]

Dirk belongs entirely to the new era of the NBA. I don't think he would have been anything more than Kukoc if he had come along at that time. If Kukoc were 19 years old today, with the current rules, he'd be the #1 pick in the draft.

Drazen had to work hard on defense in order to get playing time. He had a difficult time sniffing the court for Portland. With today's rules, guys like Steve Nash, who play absolutely no defense, can be two-time MVPs.

The NBA was at its zenith during the MJ era of the early and mid 90s. Those teams played hard and those playoffs were battles. Compare the intensity and physicality of those games with the playoffs of today. And they played defense in the 80s. Perhaps you keep making this assertion that they did not, Brick, because of the showtime Lakers, but those games were physical battles. Nothing like the garbage we see today, where a "hard" foul earns a one-game suspension.

I think the NBA has bottomed out due to the overall lack of intensity, which is partly a result of the rules changes. Growing up, I remember the playoffs being about individual story arcs as the NBA moved towards a star dominated league. Every story needs a good guy and a bad guy. For a decade, half the country hated the Celtics and half the country hated the Lakers. It was a great story. We all hated the Pistons and the Knicks, and loved to see MJ vanquish them. Today, who's the bad guy? The Pistons, again, maybe. But who's the good guy? The Spurs? They're boring, no visible intensity, Manu flopping about like Deco. The only thing interesting about the Spurs is Parker's loudmouth girlfriend, and she's just annoying. The drama feels manufactured. When I watch a game, I feel like I'm seeing guy's paid an exhorbitant amount of money to only contribute on one end of the floor. It's boring.

I don't buy the argument that Americans love scoring. We love football, American football, a sport which often contributes low scoring games. A 21-7 game seems like a lot, but if it was soccer that would be a 3-1 game. The NFL has created rules, on and off the field, that insure a very intense product each and every week. When you turn on an NFL game you are guaranteed to see the very best football players on the planet play at the best of their abilities. You can't say that about the NBA, mostly because of their guaranteed contracts, but also due to the defensive rules changes. In the 80s and the MJ era we knew that those guys were giving a full effort, especially during the playoffs.

1) Dirk got drafted in '98 and was averaging 20+ppg by '00. If anythign a MORE impressive acheivement in the mdoern era when scoring is down than it was int he past.

2) I think you are remembering an idealic past that does not really exist. In 1990 the Pistons were defensive monsters...for allowing teams to average a mere 98.3ppg and .447 Opp FG% against them! Woot! Meanwhile, 26 of the 27 teams in the league averaged 100+ppg, exactly 2 teams shot below 45%, and most shot 48%+. The Utah Jazz shot 50%+ AS A TEAM. If there was mega defense being played during the era, it certainly wasn't terribly effective.

 

[Venom]

1) Dirk got drafted in '98 and was averaging 20+ppg by '00. If anythign a MORE impressive acheivement in the mdoern era when scoring is down than it was int he past.

2) I think you are remembering an idealic past that does not really exist. In 1990 the Pistons were defensive monsters...for allowing teams to average a mere 98.3ppg and .447 Opp FG% against them! Woot! Meanwhile, 26 of the 27 teams in the league averaged 100+ppg, exactly 2 teams shot below 45%, and most shot 48%+. The Utah Jazz shot 50%+ AS A TEAM. If there was mega defense being played during the era, it certainly wasn't terribly effective.

1. Dirk's a great scorer. I just think that his lack of defense would have reduced his game in the mandatory man-to-man era. He also played for Nellie, who was notorious for running "zone" defenses as far back as Run TMC.

2. That could be. I just remember epic battles and genuine animosity. Perhaps there is a resurgence of that, and it just feels like Stern and Jackson are doing everything possible to neuter the league. I don't know.