359 replies to this topic

[smastroyin]

Before 1975 it was almost impossible to even get to the NBA Finals without a dominant big man. In the mid-70's I guess dominant wasn't as necessary but usually they were pretty good centers. In the 80's you still had Kareem and Parrish. I guess you could call the Dr. J/Moses Malone teams more in the mold of the types of teams we see today, though Malone himself is one of the best 4's in history and also played the 5, and then the Pistons.

[Gravistar]

Lars, two things. First I said big men (4s & 5s) and I cited Dirk, not Chandler, for Dallas.

Second, my sample size went back 20 years. That's 30% of league history. Keep going back and the stats are probably similar with the likes of Kareem, Parish, Wilt, Russel, etc. Most of the time -- a high percentage of all NBA seasons -- the champs were anchored by an all-star or better 4 or 5.

Okay, so let's say that having a dominant center is a necessary but not sufficient condition if you want to win a title. (I'm going to ignore your move to include PF's, because, like Nick and Sydney, I think that it's ridiculous to make an argument about 40% of a lineup.) Even within your sample, there is a lot of evidence that this is becoming less the case today, as it seems like centers play a much less important role today. Nowadays centers are primarily asked to be great defenders, and only occasionally people whom you route your offense through. Even the indisputably most dominant center in the league today is an extraordinarily ugly offensive player. And teams like the 05 Spurs were able to win because they weren't facing a team with a seven-foot, lane-clogging center, but a modified 6'9 defensive specialist, Ben Wallace.

[lars10]

Lars, two things. First I said big men (4s & 5s) and I cited Dirk, not Chandler, for Dallas.

Second, my sample size went back 20 years. That's 30% of league history. Keep going back and the stats are probably similar with the likes of Kareem, Parish, Wilt, Russel, etc. Most of the time -- a high percentage of all NBA seasons -- the champs were anchored by an all-star or better 4 or 5.

Dolomite... I quoted you...but you're right someone else posted the Chandler example.. I was sort of combining all of the arguments.

I still refute your second point... albeit partly true...what does it mean in the scheme of things? Most of those same teams you site had at least a decent if not great PG or SF...and there have been probably as many teams with a dominant PG and serviceable Center...

Russell was obv huge, but so was Cousy and Havlicek etc. Kareem-Magic; Wilt-West; Parish-McHale, Bird, DJ etc..those teams were loaded.

As I said in the post you sort of responded to...most championship teams have a ton of talent... the Celts have a great 4 (or was) and serviceable 5s... but do you get significantly better upgrading your 4/5 by significantly downgrading your 1? I guess I understand how you don't build a team with Rondo as the best player..but most Championship contending teams have significant talent, so hopefully at the end of the day you have a team that is talented...and Rondo is a part of it. I disagree with most here in that it seems to me that Rondo is capable of changing his game to fit most systems...he obviously prefers to run, but he is highly capable of running the half court as well. So in my mind if you keep Rondo you're not restricting yourself to one particular system of the other, but I may differ from others on this.

[dolomite133]

Lars, what we'll need to do is acquire or develop an all star PF/C after KG departs. Unfortunately lots of the young up and comers like Love and Marc Gasol are locked up. Bogut and Hibbert are risky gambles if they're even available. So looks like our best option is either the draft or acquiring and developing an unproven player, maybe someone another team has no place for or is ready to give up on.

[nighthob]

I still refute your second point... albeit partly true...what does it mean in the scheme of things? Most of those same teams you site had at least a decent if not great PG or SF...and there have been probably as many teams with a dominant PG and serviceable Center...

I mean if you're blowing the definition of "decent" to include "average starter or better" then many title winners of the last two decades qualify. But not too many. B.J. Armstrong was pretty bad as an offensive QB, but luckily all that was required of him was to hit wide open jumpers. Steve Kerr wasn't average at all. Kenny Smith was pretty bad. He should have been remitting half his pay to Hakeem.

Avery Johnson and Derek Fisher were both below average starters and the young Tony Parker was about as far from "dominant" as it got (he wasn't really an all-star level player until the final Spurs title). Chauncey Billups was still in the merely "above average" category the year Detroit won (his real all star years were 2006-2008). Rajon Rondo was "the other guy" in 2008 and the Lakers took the next two titles with the broken remnants of Derek Fisher, who had gone from "15th-20th best point guard in the NBA" in his prime to "30th-40th best point guard in the NBA" in 2009 and 2010.

Meanwhile the two greatest point guards of the last 20 years (Kidd and Payton) didn't get their rings until they'd reached the roleplayer part of their careers. Due to the depth at the position it's just not as vital as you're making it out to be.

Edited by nighthob, 06 March 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[lars10]

Lars, what we'll need to do is acquire or develop an all star PF/C after KG departs. Unfortunately lots of the young up and comers like Love and Marc Gasol are locked up. Bogut and Hibbert are risky gambles if they're even available. So looks like our best option is either the draft or acquiring and developing an unproven player, maybe someone another team has no place for or is ready to give up on.

I wonder how high in the lottery players like Henson and Zeller will be or Anthony Davis etc. Seems like there are some very decent big men coming out of school soon..but who knows if the Celts will be anywhere close to acquiring any of them.

I think the Celts fortunes rest on if KG and Allen take significant pay cuts to come back, if Green is able to help at all, and if they're some way able to sign a significant free agent with the money that will be coming off the books. I guess it all depends if KG, Allen, and Pierce are indeed done or if the team needs a much longer preseason and more typical regular season with more regular practices. Their lack of rebounding has been significant..but so have their injuries, lack of practices and number of players that have been added in that haven't had a chance to practice all that much in a very tight season.

[lars10]

I mean if you're blowing the definition of "decent" to include "average starter or better" then many title winners of the last two decades qualify. But not too many. B.J. Armstrong was pretty bad as an offensive QB, but luckily all that was required of him was to hit wide open jumpers. Steve Kerr wasn't average at all. Kenny Smith was pretty bad. He should have been remitting half his pay to Hakeem.

Avery Johnson and Derek Fisher were both below average starters and the young Tony Parker was about as far from "dominant" as it got (he wasn't really an all-star level player until the final Spurs title). Chauncey Billups was still in the merely "above average" category the year Detroit won (his real all star years were 2006-2008). Rajon Rondo was "the other guy" in 2008 and the Lakers took the next two titles with the broken remnants of Derek Fisher, who had gone from "15th-20th best point guard in the NBA" in his prime to "30th-40th best point guard in the NBA" in 2009 and 2010.

Meanwhile the two greatest point guards of the last 20 years (Kidd and Payton) didn't get their rings until they'd reached the roleplayer part of their careers. Due to the depth at the position it's just not as vital as you're making it out to be.

IF the argument is going to be 1-2 vs 4-5 then I think it is a significant argument. Obv the Bulls don't help anyones argument...no real dominant Center or PG (although Armstrong averaged around 15 ppg on a team with Jordan and Pippen so he couldn't have been that terrible) and Pistons as well.

And is Payton really your 2nd best PG of the last 20 years? Averaging 6.72 APG? 20 years that included all of the really good PGs playing now and Isaiah Thomas, John Stockton (omitted for not winning a title?), Hardaway even?

I also still disagree with you on Kidd being a role player last year... he played significant minutes (2nd to Dirk actually), had the most assists and decent rebounding and point numbers...but I guess every player on the Mavs is a role player next to Dirk...and his numbers were probably worse than they would have been when he was younger.

[nighthob]

IF the argument is going to be 1-2 vs 4-5 then I think it is a significant argument. Obv the Bulls don't help anyones argument...no real dominant Center or PG (although Armstrong averaged around 15 ppg on a team with Jordan and Pippen so he couldn't have been that terrible) and Pistons as well.

Armstrong was a 6'2" shooting guard. He was about as much of a point guard as Avery Bradley. But luckily for him he played with a pretty good point forward in an offense that asked him to do the one thing that he was good at, hitting open jumpers

And is Payton really your 2nd best PG of the last 20 years? Averaging 6.72 APG? 20 years that included all of the really good PGs playing now and Isaiah Thomas, John Stockton (omitted for not winning a title?), Hardaway even?

The last twenty years encompassed the the last three years of Isiah Thomas' career. Otherwise known as the period of time that he was falling off the cliff production wise. And yes, Gary Payton was better than Stockton or Hardaway. Who didn't take teams to titles despite being all point guardy and shit.

I also still disagree with you on Kidd being a role player last year... he played significant minutes (2nd to Dirk actually), had the most assists and decent rebounding and point numbers...but I guess every player on the Mavs is a role player next to Dirk...and his numbers were probably worse than they would have been when he was younger.

Production wise Kidd was around NBA average last year. He was definitely in the roleplayer stage of his career.

[fairlee76]

I wonder how high in the lottery players like Henson and Zeller will be or Anthony Davis etc. Seems like there are some very decent big men coming out of school soon..but who knows if the Celts will be anywhere close to acquiring any of them.

Davis is the consensus number 1 pick. I have not seen enough of Zeller to comment on him, but with Henson it seems like what you see is what you get. He'll be a solid rotation player but not an elite 4. If the Celts do end up in the lottery, with a pick in the top 10, I hope they would target Robinson or Jones.

[dolomite133]

IF the argument is going to be 1-2 vs 4-5 then I think it is a significant argument. Obv the Bulls don't help anyones argument...no real dominant Center or PG (although Armstrong averaged around 15 ppg on a team with Jordan and Pippen so he couldn't have been that terrible) and Pistons as well.

And is Payton really your 2nd best PG of the last 20 years? Averaging 6.72 APG? 20 years that included all of the really good PGs playing now and Isaiah Thomas, John Stockton (omitted for not winning a title?), Hardaway even?

I also still disagree with you on Kidd being a role player last year... he played significant minutes (2nd to Dirk actually), had the most assists and decent rebounding and point numbers...but I guess every player on the Mavs is a role player next to Dirk...and his numbers were probably worse than they would have been when he was younger.

Let's look at it this way.

Total NBA titles for the Top 25 career assist leaders: 21 (6 Cousy)

Total NBA titles for the Top 25 career rebounding leaders: 48 (11 Russell)

Edited by dolomite133, 06 March 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[lars10]

Armstrong was a 6'2" shooting guard. He was about as much of a point guard as Avery Bradley. But luckily for him he played with a pretty good point forward in an offense that asked him to do the one thing that he was good at, hitting open jumpers

The last twenty years encompassed the the last three years of Isiah Thomas' career. Otherwise known as the period of time that he was falling off the cliff production wise. And yes, Gary Payton was better than Stockton or Hardaway. Who didn't take teams to titles despite being all point guardy and shit.

Production wise Kidd was around NBA average last year. He was definitely in the roleplayer stage of his career.

Fair enough on Thomas..I can agree with you there... But I don't think i can agree with you on Stockton (and I have no real love for Stockton), but Stockton's career averages are better in every category than Payton's other than points (3 less) and 4 more apg in 4 less mpg...which is what I'd look for in point guard personally.

http://www.basketbal.../stockjo01.html
http://www.basketbal.../paytoga01.html

[slamminsammya]

Bulls won three of their titles aided by the services of one Dennis Rodman. According to one man, Rodman was easily one of the top ten players of all time. Interesting argument here: http://skepticalspor...m/?page_id=1222

[mcpickl]

Over the past 25 years, outside of Jordan's Bulls, just about every NBA champion has had an all-star/superstar big man. This could be a center OR power forward. Olajuwon, Duncan, Shaq, KG, Gasol and Dirk. The 2004 Pistons had the two Wallaces. Hell, even the Bulls had Ho Grant (first three) and Toni Kukoc (last three), neither of which was a slouch. Could Bosh join this group? Sure.

But couldn't one also say, over the past 25 years ,outside of the first two Spurs teams, just about every NBA champion has had an all-star/superstar wing player. This could be a small forward OR shooting guard. Drexler, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe, Ginobli, Wade, Pierce. The 2004 Pistons had Rip Hamilton. Hell even the early Spurs had Robert Horry, and he was no slouch.

Again, it's not about filling a certain position. It's about getting good players, whatever position they play.

Edited by mcpickl, 06 March 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[dolomite133]

But couldn't one also say, over the past 25 years ,outside of the first two Spurs teams, just about every NBA champion has had an all-star/superstar wing player. This could be a small forward OR shooting guard. Drexler, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe, Ginobli, Wade, Pierce. The 2004 Pistons had Rip Hamilton. Hell even the early Spurs had Robert Horry, and he was no slouch.

Again, it's not about filling a certain position. It's about getting good players, whatever position they play.

Yes. You could by and large say that. That has, indeed been the formula. Big man + scoring wing = title.

EDIT: This again questions the wisdom of rebuilding around a point guard.

Edited by dolomite133, 06 March 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[lars10]

Yes. You could by and large say that. That has, indeed been the formula. Big man + scoring wing = title.

EDIT: This again questions the wisdom of rebuilding around a point guard.

I think the mistake that's made is saying the Celts will be rebuilding 'around' a PG...they'll be rebuilding with a proven PG. It makes no sense to trade Rondo if all you're getting back is a bag of balls or the equivalent in players (obviously). But the only reason that they'll build 'around' Rondo is because everyone else's contract is expiring.

The Celts will have cap space to sign some decent players to play with Rondo...and I don't think Ainge has it in his mind to keep that talent level below Rondo. I guess the question is this: Does keeping Rondo preclude you from going out and getting players that are better than Rondo..or does trading Rondo get you a better PF/C. I don't think it's been shown yet that trading Rondo gets you a significant upgrade in the player you'll get back...especially when every story written by the miserable horde of Boston sportswriters is about what kind of malcontent Rondo is.

But one thing I think Ainge has proven is that he will trade and will often get things to work out (sometimes not)...and there are enough GMs out there willing to make fairly dumb trades..ie. Bass for Baby. I don't think anyone actually knows what Ainge is thinking because he hasn't typically shown his hand until the deals have been basically done.

[Sprowl]

Rondo's scoring potency, mapped by Kirk Goldsberry:

The hexagons that represent each shooting area are larger where Rondo shoots a lot, smaller where he doesn't. And while the image echoes the league-wide results, it also reveals some personal idiosyncrasies—such as the fact that Rondo, a poor outside shooter for the most part, actually has one sweet spot when it comes to three-pointers.

[Brickowski]

Interesting chart. I woulder how different it would be if Rondo played in a different offense. Probably not much. In fact Goldsberry's chart of all shots taken from 2006-2011 clearly illustrates the demise of the mid-range game in the NBA, as does Rondo's chart.

[slamminsammya]

Interesting chart. I woulder how different it would be if Rondo played in a different offense. Probably not much. In fact Goldsberry's chart of all shots taken from 2006-2011 clearly illustrates the demise of the mid-range game in the NBA, as does Rondo's chart.

You really can't say this without a chart from the past. And I hope this isn't in some "the old days were better" tone, because it has been pretty well established that the main reason the mid range game has disappeared is because it is the most inefficient way to score, rather than a decline in ability. The recent Sloan Conference had a fascinating paper about where rebounds end up which revealed that mid range jumpers are even worse than originally thought because they are the least likely shots to result in offensive rebounds. See here: http://www.sloanspor...ang_updated.pdf

[wutang112878]

You really can't say this without a chart from the past. And I hope this isn't in some "the old days were better" tone, because it has been pretty well established that the main reason the mid range game has disappeared is because it is the most inefficient way to score, rather than a decline in ability. The recent Sloan Conference had a fascinating paper about where rebounds end up which revealed that mid range jumpers are even worse than originally thought because they are the least likely shots to result in offensive rebounds. See here: http://www.sloanspor...ang_updated.pdf

That was a great read, and maybe I missed it but I dont believe it ever touched on the data that was used for all the calculations and charts. Because without that we have a chicken and egg type of issue. Are mid-range jumpers the most inefficient way to score because the ability of the person taking the shot is so bad [hence the bad rebounding situation]? And say in the 80s were the offensive rebounding %s for mid-range jumpers and FG% number better? This would solve the debate of is this an inefficient way to score overall or an inefficient way to score in todays game because of a lack of skill.

[slamminsammya]

That was a great read, and maybe I missed it but I dont believe it ever touched on the data that was used for all the calculations and charts. Because without that we have a chicken and egg type of issue. Are mid-range jumpers the most inefficient way to score because the ability of the person taking the shot is so bad [hence the bad rebounding situation]? And say in the 80s were the offensive rebounding %s for mid-range jumpers and FG% number better? This would solve the debate of is this an inefficient way to score overall or an inefficient way to score in todays game because of a lack of skill.

Obviously a bit off topic at this point, but I would agree we have no evidence on shot charts from the 80s, say, but theoretically it makes complete sense that the game has just adjusted to the three point line and the effeciencies it creates more than lose skilled players at the mid range game. First of all, I would say it is uncontroversial to assume that field goal percentage declines more or less with the physical range of the shot. From that basic assumption the natural conclusion is that the least effecient shot is the foot-on-the-line three, and pretty much anything mid-range for that matter. Probably players today are a little "less skilled" at the mid range game, but just because I doubt they practice as much because it is inefficient. I think it is safe to assume that just in a very vague sense of "skill" today's players are at the very least extremely close to, and probably better, than their peers from previous decades for any number of reasons (financial incentive, larger pool of talent, better training/conditioning practices, etc. etc).

Getting back to topic, this whole discussion about the mid range game's inefficiency has me even more ticked off about when people complain about Rondo's lack of a mid range game. Would it be nice? Sure, you can always wish a player was better at something, but people basically want Rondo to improve what is arguably the least important, or least efficient part of the game. I know this is ignoring the argument that the threat of a mid range game opens things up for everyone else, himself included, but I just think it is ridiculous.

Edited by slamminsammya, 09 March 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Brickowski]

Well, the "low midrange efficiency" argument is a chicken-egg question. Is the mid range game inherently inefficient, so that players no longer feel they must master these skills, or does the lack of these skills create the inefficiency?

George Gervin's mid range game was pretty efficient. Ray Allen's mid-range game still is.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Well, the "low midrange efficiency" argument is a chicken-egg question. Is the mid range game inherently inefficient, so that players no longer feel they must master these skills, or does the lack of these skills create the inefficiency?

George Gervin's mid range game was pretty efficient. Ray Allen's mid-range game still is.

Personally, I think the college game is to blame for the lack of midrange skills in today's players. The 3 point line is college basketball is so close, and such a high percentage shot that two things happen: 1) players learn to live behind the 3 point line, and 2) there isn't enough space between the post and the 3 point line in college for it to make sense for teams to create/take those shots. The college/high school games are so congested that open mid-range looks come about far less often.

Though, I admit that I'm just basing this on what I see. I haven't seen data that backs that up.

[nighthob]

That was a great read, and maybe I missed it but I dont believe it ever touched on the data that was used for all the calculations and charts. Because without that we have a chicken and egg type of issue. Are mid-range jumpers the most inefficient way to score because the ability of the person taking the shot is so bad [hence the bad rebounding situation]? And say in the 80s were the offensive rebounding %s for mid-range jumpers and FG% number better? This would solve the debate of is this an inefficient way to score overall or an inefficient way to score in todays game because of a lack of skill.

Well, the "low midrange efficiency" argument is a chicken-egg question. Is the mid range game inherently inefficient, so that players no longer feel they must master these skills, or does the lack of these skills create the inefficiency?

It's inefficient because you have to shoot them really really well for them to be a league average way of scoring. You don't rack up many FTA on mid-range jumpers, so overall they're generally worth the percentage you shoot them at. The overall eFG% for the NBA last year was .498, meaning that you would need to be shooting those mid range jumpers at a 50% clip just to be average. But when you factor in scoring efficiency it gets even worse, because the NBA average PP/SA was 1.083 last year, meaning that that the shooter needs to be making 54% of those mid range shots just to be producing average efficiency.

And to get open mid-range jumpers for perimeter players you need to run them through multiple screens (a la Rip Hamilton or Ray Allen) or isolate them (a la Pierce or Anthony). Otherwise it's just too easy for defenders to challenge the shot. So overall it's inefficient because even historically good shooters like Ray produce results that are below average in comparison with leaguewide shooting and scoring efficiency.

Also can we finally put to bed the myth that things were so much better back in the day when players had mythical Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls? In 1986 the league average eFG% was .493. What was it last year in the age of "brain dead athletes" that "don't know how to play the game"? .498. All that's changed in the last quarter century is that teams take 6-8 time more treys. But they do it because those treys are a more efficient way of scoring. Anyone making 33% of their treys is producing league average shooting efficiency. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Edited by nighthob, 09 March 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Brickowski]

Yes, but the game is situational. In some situations it must be better to pull up for the mid range jumper than having your shot blocked.
My guess is that shooting percentages are up slightly because more layups and dunks are being shot. There are more layups and dunks because today's players are more athletic, not because they are more skilled.

[nighthob]

Shooting percentages aren't up, adjusted shooting percentages are largely the same. Between .490 and .500, just as they've been since the dawn of the three point shot. Shooting percentages are down, which is usually the first thing that Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls people throw out to prove that players were so much more skilled back in the day. They weren't.

Edited by nighthob, 09 March 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[wutang112878]

I think it is safe to assume that just in a very vague sense of "skill" today's players are at the very least extremely close to, and probably better, than their peers from previous decades for any number of reasons (financial incentive, larger pool of talent, better training/conditioning practices, etc. etc).

Shooting percentages aren't up, adjusted shooting percentages are largely the same. Between .490 and .500, just as they've been since the dawn of the three point shot. Shooting percentages are down, which is usually the first thing that Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls people throw out to prove that players were so much more skilled back in the day. They weren't.

We might need a new thread for this, and it could be a very interesting discussion.

Slammin, I was with you right up until this point, and Nighthob I have to disagree with you as well for similar reasons. There are some skills that were more common in the 70s and 80s compared to todays NBA players, specifically passing, general ball movement, shooting in general, mid-range shooting and I would also argue offensive basketball IQ. The players today play a different game, its more based on athleticism, and obviously we could never take the 86 Celts and have them play the 08 Celts or 09 Lakers but ultimately even if it was proven that todays players are more effective it does not mean they are more skilled, and maybe we are arguing about semantic type stuff.

The easiest way to make my point is, if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

Getting back to topic, this whole discussion about the mid range game's inefficiency has me even more ticked off about when people complain about Rondo's lack of a mid range game. Would it be nice? Sure, you can always wish a player was better at something, but people basically want Rondo to improve what is arguably the least important, or least efficient part of the game. I know this is ignoring the argument that the threat of a mid range game opens things up for everyone else, himself included, but I just think it is ridiculous.

As for the mid-range game and Rondo, its important because of the sag defense that opponents can use. Everyone knows Rondo is not an effective shooter, so if teams chose to they can just guard him in the paint and essentially ignore him when he doesnt get there. What makes Nash such a potent offensive weapon is that he can shoot 3s, has probably one of the better mid range games in the league, and he is a great passer. Rondo has 1 of those abilities, and while he can be a highly effective player could you imagine what he might be like if he had just 2 of those abilities with his speed? Thats why I think folks really want him to develop some outside shooting skills.

Also, just a personal pet peeve of mind but if you are a 1, 2 or 3 IMO you should be able to shoot at least 70% from the freethrow line, its just a matter of effort to develop that skill to that point. Rondo has never done it and his bad habits at the line [like falling back, or shooting with inconsistent form] drive me bonkers because they are things I even know he should fix.

Edited by wutang112878, 09 March 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[The Social Chair]

The easiest way to make my point is, if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

.

Part of what made McHale so effective was the proportions of his body. I wish you'd used examples like Kedrick Brown and Ty Thomas instead of Pierce and KG because it makes everything you said feel uncomfortable.

[dolomite133]

The easiest way to make my point is, if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

[nighthob]

There are some skills that were more common in the 70s and 80s compared to todays NBA players, specifically passing, general ball movement, shooting in general, mid-range shooting and I would also argue offensive basketball IQ. The players today play a different game, its more based on athleticism, and obviously we could never take the 86 Celts and have them play the 08 Celts or 09 Lakers but ultimately even if it was proven that todays players are more effective it does not mean they are more skilled, and maybe we are arguing about semantic type stuff.

The actual skill statistics are static, free throw shooting remains the same as it's been since players all began shooting free throws overhand. It's been around .750 since the 70s. The adjusted shooting percentages are also the same now as they were 30 years ago.

"Mid range shooting" isn't some mythical skill. It's just shooting. Perimeter players don't bother to take them anymore because coaches hate them. And coaches hate them because all time greats at the top of their game achieve league average shooting results in the mid range. I mean if you want to argue that Ray Allen is an athletic hack that lacks Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls, feel free, but you're in left field here. At his very best he used to be able to shoot .480-.490 in the 16'-23' range. Which was average overall shooting efficiency.

It's just not a shot that makes much sense for perimeter players. I mean seriously, do you want Ray Allen hitting 48% of his mid rage jumpers or 40% of his treys? Or let's put it another way, if it's such rare "skill" why are so many big men so good at it? (Hint, because defensively you're always better off with the other PF shooting .420-.480 in the mid-range than .500+ in the paint.

And neither is passing any worse, adjust for the pace and the assist leaders today are producing as many now as guys did then. Offenses are different, of course, because defenses are different and the effect of the three point shot. Not Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls.

The easiest way to make my point is, if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

Hilariously you basically picked two guys that would be unquestionably worse by taking away their defensive instincts while not improving them offensively.

[fairlee76]

The easiest way to make my point is, if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

You know, I keep reading those pesky stories about KG's lack of basketball IQ. If only he were a more cerebral player, he might really have made something of himself.

[Nick Kaufman]

but ultimately even if it was proven that todays players are more effective it does not mean they are more skilled

You re making a logical error here. At the end of the day being more effective is being more skilled. What makes you more likely to win is by default what makes you more skillful at a game.

However, the error you make is a very common error people make. In every field of of human activity there's a discrepancy between the mythologized/romanticized version of how it should be conducted and the strategies/behaviors that actually make you successful in that activity.

[Hendu's Gait]

And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense

what, what? McHale was one of the best defensive forwards of his era, 3 first team All-D, 3 second team.

[Sprowl]

what, what? McHale was one of the best defensive forwards of his era, 3 first team All-D, 3 second team.

Truly. McHale was one of the all-time great floppy storks. He could slide, lean and reach better than anyone under 7'3.

[wutang112878]

Part of what made McHale so effective was the proportions of his body. I wish you'd used examples like Kedrick Brown and Ty Thomas instead of Pierce and KG because it makes everything you said feel uncomfortable.

Yes the long arms were a huge help, but I would argue that the skill side of the equation is really what made him great. For a guy with really very little athletic ability he was one of the most effective low-post scorers ever, and he did it with skill and moves not quickness. He could consistently get his man either up in the air, off balance or out of position even though he was neither fast or quick. Which is why I made the KG comparison, if KG had McHales low-post moves I am pretty sure he would be close to unstoppable.

The actual skill statistics are static, free throw shooting remains the same as it's been since players all began shooting free throws overhand. It's been around .750 since the 70s. The adjusted shooting percentages are also the same now as they were 30 years ago.

"Mid range shooting" isn't some mythical skill. It's just shooting. Perimeter players don't bother to take them anymore because coaches hate them. And coaches hate them because all time greats at the top of their game achieve league average shooting results in the mid range. I mean if you want to argue that Ray Allen is an athletic hack that lacks Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls, feel free, but you're in left field here. At his very best he used to be able to shoot .480-.490 in the 16'-23' range. Which was average overall shooting efficiency.

I think we might not be on the same page in terms of basketball skill and natural/physical ability. When I think of skill I think of something someone has worked on and developed, ie a mid-range game. When I think of natural ability I think of athleticism, speed, jumping out of the gym, etc. There are many ways that todays players have more physical ability, but I would still argue that there has been some skills that have been lost in the NBA over the past 20 years. Passing as an example, I just remember watching that 1986 Celts team [which granted was very special] but every single guy on that team made some amazing passes. Mid-range game is another example, and we can talk about effective FG%, and I wont argue with your numbers, but there is also a 'balance' effect, so because Ainge, DJ, Walton and the Chief could hit mid-range jumpers it forced opposing teams to cover the entire court, which in turn could create passing lines and open shots in other areas. Todays players have huge advantages in terms of physical and natural athletic abilities, but I would argue that if they improved some basketball fundamentals [like ball movement, and the mid-range game, which are kind of completely lost] they level of play would be much, much higher.

It's just not a shot that makes much sense for perimeter players. I mean seriously, do you want Ray Allen hitting 48% of his mid rage jumpers or 40% of his treys? Or let's put it another way, if it's such rare "skill" why are so many big men so good at it? (Hint, because defensively you're always better off with the other PF shooting .420-.480 in the mid-range than .500+ in the paint.

Again, wont argue with the numbers but I would go back to balance. Extreme examples but if 3s and low-post shots are the most effective way to score, why dont teams every try to put out lineups with 5 SGs or 5 Cs with low-post games? In the NFL why not just try to throw a 10+ yard pass every play and hope to hit just 1 of 3 to move the chains? In baseball why do folks still believe there is value in bunting and stealing bases even though mathematically its proven that on the whole for a season you score more total runs by never bunting or stealing? I am not suggesting that every 3rd shot in the NBA should be a mid-range one, but I would argue that if players improved that skill and took it slightly more often, it could add to the offensive effectiveness of their teams.

And neither is passing any worse, adjust for the pace and the assist leaders today are producing as many now as guys did then. Offenses are different, of course, because defenses are different and the effect of the three point shot. Not Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls.

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one. Passing cant just be measured by qty of assists, for a few reasons. Ball movement has many effects, like wearing out a defense and keeping everyone involved and helping players without great offensive skills to be more effective. Its difficult to judge that with numbers, I cant think of a good way to measure it. Furthermore, could we agree that the low-post game has also slowly been lost from the NBA over the last 20 years? If so, while low-post moves slow the pace of the game, they also rarely produce assists, so we would also have to adjust for that as well.

Hilariously you basically picked two guys that would be unquestionably worse by taking away their defensive instincts while not improving them offensively.

Sorry, not sure where you were going here.

You know, I keep reading those pesky stories about KG's lack of basketball IQ. If only he were a more cerebral player, he might really have made something of himself.

I am not saying he is bad, just that his game is not the typical [and feel free to call me old-school] 4 game, where you want him staying down-low and playing in the post. I would cite my example above of putting McHale and his low-post moves on KGs body in his prime which I think would make him virtually unstoppable.

You re making a logical error here. At the end of the day being more effective is being more skilled. What makes you more likely to win is by default what makes you more skillful at a game.

However, the error you make is a very common error people make. In every field of of human activity there's a discrepancy between the mythologized/romanticized version of how it should be conducted and the strategies/behaviors that actually make you successful in that activity.

Lets flip this question around, why cant we be both more skilled and use the other abilities that make them more effective as well? For example, lets take an average 300lb lineman from todays NFL and have him play in the 60s before weight training became popular, I am sure he would be better solely due to his athletic, size and height advantages. But couldnt he also improve his technique and skillset, is there a reason he cant do both? Thats my issues with some of todays players that solely rely on athleticism and physical gifts, ie Josh Smith or Dwight Howard, because if they also improved their basketball skillset their game would be amazing.

[nighthob]

Yes the long arms were a huge help, but I would argue that the skill side of the equation is really what made him great. For a guy with really very little athletic ability he was one of the most effective low-post scorers ever, and he did it with skill and moves not quickness. He could consistently get his man either up in the air, off balance or out of position even though he was neither fast or quick. Which is why I made the KG comparison, if KG had McHales low-post moves I am pretty sure he would be close to unstoppable.

Strength is an athletic ability, believe it or not, and McHale was actually quite strong for his day. They look skinny now because NBA players are much much stronger now, and someone like JuJuan Johnson, who would have been as big as any PF back in the days when players had Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls is now considered too skinny to be anything but an end of the rotation player.

Garnett, until very late in his career, was on the skinny side, so for him to try and initiate offense by setting up on the block and fighting guys like Shaq & Tim Duncan for position would not only have been stupid, but counterproductive. Because it was a whole lot easier for him to get to the rim by starting at the elbow and taking his man off the dribble. This demand that players get to the rim by starting on the blocks is the ultimate "style over substance" debate. You don't get style points in the NBA.

I think we might not be on the same page in terms of basketball skill and natural/physical ability. When I think of skill I think of something someone has worked on and developed, ie a mid-range game.

We're definitely on two different pages here, as you actually don't seem to understand the actual skills involved. Do you know what BEEF means? I mean without googling it. There is no mythical "mid range" skill. There's just shooting. You either learn to do it right as a kid and reinforce it by shooting millions of jumpers or you come to it later and life and learn to spot shoot from your spots on the floor regardless of your form (think Shawm Marion). Guys in that second category don't shoot mid range jumpers because unless they're such awful shooters that defenders refuse to challenge them there (think Rajon Rondo) they don't get to take set shots in the mid range. And contrary to a belief popular to the people that weren't there there were plenty of those players back in the day. Guys like Larry Bird and Paul Pierce were always the exception and never the rule.

Passing as an example, I just remember watching that 1986 Celts team [which granted was very special] but every single guy on that team made some amazing passes.

Again, if it's such a lost art why are the pace adjusted statistics virtually identical among the leaders? About the only change has come from the increased use of the halfcourt which produces fewer assists overall (and even there the pace adjusted drop for league total assists is something like 4%, which is what you would expect in the era of better transition defense and increased use of halfcourt and isolation offense).

Mid-range game is another example, and we can talk about effective FG%, and I wont argue with your numbers, but there is also a 'balance' effect, so because Ainge, DJ, Walton and the Chief could hit mid-range jumpers it forced opposing teams to cover the entire court, which in turn could create passing lines and open shots in other areas.

Again, if it's such a mythical skill, why are so many big men so good at shooting them? Is the problem some bizarre virus that only strikes guys 6'6" and smaller? Is that the cause?

Again, wont argue with the numbers but I would go back to balance. Extreme examples but if 3s and low-post shots are the most effective way to score, why dont teams every try to put out lineups with 5 SGs or 5 Cs with low-post games?

Of course, the reason you're not arguing with the numbers is that they demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about. The reason teams don't run out lineups of five guys that have to start on the blocks to score is that it's too easy to defend. The reason no one runs out lineups of five SGs is that it's too hard for them to prevent other teams from scoring.

In the era of modern zone defense it's all about floor spacing and finding the right balance between shot creators and scorers/finishers. Having your bigs shoot in the mid range is slightly less efficient that if they're scoring in the paint, but coaches like that mid range game because it creates better floor spacing for the rest of the scorers. For guards and perimeter players it's an inefficient shot because they never produce as many points.

There are times when it's the right shot, and coaches don't mind it when guys take it under those circumstances. But a mid-range shooting specialist just isn't terribly efficient. Look at the Detroit Pistons, if Hamilton had ever been a reliable three point shooter they would have won at least another title during their four year run. But having just the one guy that could shoot from downtown made them easier to defend in the postseason.

Edited by nighthob, 10 March 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[slamminsammya]

As regards this bogus "ah the good ole days of fundamentals" argument being made, its easy to make nice looking passes when no one is playing defense. Watch a game from the 80s, watch a game from today. The defense is light years ahead! The concept of playing on a string was just nonexistant even in the early 90's. And, funnily, defense is something you might call a "fundamental". Also, I understand the point that was trying to be made about transplanting brains into bodies, but picking KG and Pierce as your examples is just hilariously bad, but I get it.

I guess I will make myself the first person to bring up the racial subtext behind that line of argument, so there it is.

Also, the fact that shooting percentages remain unchanged from the Goode Olde Days ™ of the 1980's says a lot about the skill level, not just athleticism, but SKILL of today's players considering that they are going against defenses that are a thousand times more organized and fundamentally sound ™ as compared to the defenses encountered in the day of Bird and Mchale.

[nighthob]

Also, the fact that shooting percentages remain unchanged from the Goode Olde Days ™ of the 1980's says a lot about the skill level, not just athleticism, but SKILL of today's players considering that they are going against defenses that are a thousand times more organized and fundamentally sound ™ as compared to the defenses encountered in the day of Bird and Mchale.

Again, the raw FG% is down, but that's largely a function of the fact that teams take 4-6 times the treys they did 25 years ago (and 6-8 times as many as they did at the dawn of the three point era in the NBA). It's when you adjust for the value of the three point shot that that shooting percentages are identical to what they were in the days of Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls. And you would think that when you measure actual shooting ability (via eFG% and FT%) and see that the figures haven't changed in decades that that would put the debate to rest. But the YOTBSes just won't let it go.

Edited by nighthob, 10 March 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[slamminsammya]

Great example:



Thibs has it down to a science. Anything from 20 or 30 years ago looks like alchemy compared to that stuff.

[Sprowl]

...Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Skylls. And you would think that when you measure actual shooting ability (via eFG% and FT%) and see that the figures haven't changed in decades that that would put the debate to rest. But the YOTBSes just won't let it go.

This wannabe meme of yours is getting tiresome. I don't read any of this supposed species posting here, so why bother preaching?

[nighthob]

Did you fail to read the posts lamenting the loss of "mid-range shooting" skills? I mean Wutang is insisting that that is exactly the case even though even he concedes that the numbers are against him.

Here, let me spell it out for you. Do you ever shoot hoops in your driveway? Do you find it easier to make buckets from 15' or from 23'? If you're like the rest of us I'm guessing the former. Do you think then that you have some mythical skill that professional basketball players have "lost"?

[Sprowl]

Did you fail to read the posts lamenting the loss of "mid-range shooting" skills? I mean Wutang is insisting that that is exactly the case even though even he concedes that the numbers are against him.

Here, let me spell it out for you. Do you ever shoot hoops in your driveway? Do you find it easier to make buckets from 15' or from 23'? If you're like the rest of us I'm guessing the former. Do you think then that you have some mythical skill that professional basketball players have "lost"?

Are you always a jerk, or do you store it up especially for SoSH? You are relentlessly rude to everybody without sufficient cause and it's getting on my nerves. STFU for three days and if you come back, learn to keep a civil tongue in your head.

[ishmael]

Gotta agree with Slamminsammya that I saw the racial angle as well (not saying it is intentional or anything).

If you had just picked players like Gerald Green and Josh Smith (who clearly lack fundamentals) it would have been a lot easier to buy that argument.

KG has been one of the smartest defensive players (who also takes advantage of his natural abilities) in the league for most of his career.

Paul Pierce was the most fundamentally sound player on his rookie year club, got into some bad habits with Antoine/OB, but has really proved his mettle during this last four year run.

[Brickowski]

Wow, did this discussion get out of hand. What does race have to do with it? The numbers show a decline in the midrange game. That's a fact. As far as I can see, the major contributor is the 3 point line-- at all levels of the game. Coaches have concluded (rightly) that if you are going to take long jumpers, take the shot with a 50% scoring premium. Nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to be a complete offensive player, like Allen or Pierce, you need a midrange arsenal.

Part of it is style. Treys are cool-- and it isn't a black white thing, since many of the 3-point specialists have been white: Kerr, Kapono, Korver, Miller, Reddick, Novak, etc..
It's like the underhand free throw. When is the last time you saw one of those? Here's some food for thought: http://sabermetricre...ree-throws.html

[slamminsammya]

Wow, did this discussion get out of hand. What does race have to do with it? The numbers show a decline in the midrange game. That's a fact. As far as I can see, the major contributor is the 3 point line-- at all levels of the game. Coaches have concluded (rightly) that if you are going to take long jumpers, take the shot with a 50% scoring premium. Nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to be a complete offensive player, like Allen or Pierce, you need a midrange arsenal.

Part of it is style. Treys are cool-- and it isn't a black white thing, since many of the 3-point specialists have been white: Kerr, Kapono, Korver, Miller, Reddick, Novak, etc..
It's like the underhand free throw. When is the last time you saw one of those? Here's some food for thought: http://sabermetricre...ree-throws.html

I was referring to the notion that trading Pierce and KG's brains with Bird's and McHale's respectively does have an uncomfortable racial subtext, whether intentional or not. I am not calling anyone a racist or anything close to that. But the whole High Basketball IQ Loves the Game Passion and Heart(white players) versus Raw Athletic Animal (black players) at one point in sports history was a "thing". Not trying to derail the discussion, I just wanted to point it out.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Thibs has it down to a science. Anything from 20 or 30 years ago looks like alchemy compared to that stuff.

Funny how many of these possessions seem to end up in mid-range jumpers.

[wutang112878]

Gotta agree with Slamminsammya that I saw the racial angle as well (not saying it is intentional or anything).

If you had just picked players like Gerald Green and Josh Smith (who clearly lack fundamentals) it would have been a lot easier to buy that argument.

KG has been one of the smartest defensive players (who also takes advantage of his natural abilities) in the league for most of his career.

Paul Pierce was the most fundamentally sound player on his rookie year club, got into some bad habits with Antoine/OB, but has really proved his mettle during this last four year run.

I have to defend myself on this, this is kind of getting out of hand. When I made the analogy I said:

There are some skills that were more common in the 70s and 80s compared to todays NBA players, specifically passing, general ball movement, shooting in general, mid-range shooting and I would also argue offensive basketball IQ....

if we could somehow transplant Larry Birds brain into Pierces body, and do the same with Kevin McHale's brain into KGs body, regardless of how todays game is played we are probably talking about creating the best 3 and 4 ever. And while Larry and McHale were not good on defense but I would argue that most of that was because of their limited athletic ability, but you put those 2 basketball minds in athletic bodies and its a completely different story.

So to summarize my critique of basketball skills and IQ was specifically limited to offensive end which I clearly stated and cited specific examples. And granted while I only implied this, I completely admitted that Bird and McHale were inferior defense players. Granted I did argue that it was because of physical limitations, but I dont think that is racist.

Now as for my reasoning for picking out Bird and McHale vs KG and Pierce, it was simply because KG and Pierce are currently on the Celts roster, and I was arguing about skills from the 70s and 80s. The Celts are the team I follow most whom I started watching in the 80s and when I think of Bird and McHale I was always amazed at what they accomplished with bodies that really were not that athletically gifted. Hence why I was pondering 'what might they be able to do if they were athletically gifted'? Hindsight 20/20, sure I probably could have come up with a better example, but I assure you my intentions did not have racial undertones.

I was referring to the notion that trading Pierce and KG's brains with Bird's and McHale's respectively does have an uncomfortable racial subtext, whether intentional or not. I am not calling anyone a racist or anything close to that. But the whole High Basketball IQ Loves the Game Passion and Heart(white players) versus Raw Athletic Animal (black players) at one point in sports history was a "thing". Not trying to derail the discussion, I just wanted to point it out.

Again, I assure you I wasnt trying to make this a racial issue, and explained my thought process above. Would some other suggestions make more sense, like say put Hakeems brain in Howards body, or Charles Barkleys low post bruiser style in KGs body, sure, sorry I just chose the first 2 that popped into my mind because I know the Celts history the best, but any racism is being assumed and was not intentional.



If folks want to disagree with me, feel free, but assuming racism is going a little far.

[Reardons Beard]

If folks want to disagree with me, feel free, but assuming racism is going a little far.

I'd say the man made his point - now lets drop this whole spiel and talk about the future of The Boston Celtics.

Edited by Reardons Beard, 11 March 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[ishmael]

I'd say the man made his point - now lets drop this whole spiel and talk about the future of The Boston Celtics.

Agreed.

Can we talk about the end of game offense?

Lakers have no PG. Celtics have Rondo. But two games this year, they've been able to get off reasonable shots (although not super high percentage) in the last two minutes, while the C's offense just stalls.

[Sheets]

Agreed.

Can we talk about the end of game offense?

Lakers have no PG. Celtics have Rondo. But two games this year, they've been able to get off reasonable shots (although not super high percentage) in the last two minutes, while the C's offense just stalls.

End of game, end of quarter, end of half. It's maddening. For all the talk about them being experienced vets, they look like the freaking Knicks in these situations. Such "street" ball. I'll grant that the Lakers can play some good D, but the Celts play like this on an annoyingly consistent basis against most teams.

Man, today's game pissed me off. I'll be at the game tomorrow, and if they lose I won't be nearly as mad as I am right now. The Lakers. Ugh.

[Reardons Beard]

So, naturally, word broke Monday from the Los Angeles Times that the Celtics and Lakers had discussed a trade of Rondo to L.A.:

The teams talked last week about a trade for Celtics guard Rajon Rondo, though nothing was close to accomplished and discussions dried up.
The Lakers are unwilling to trade Pau Gasol for Rondo, making a deal with Boston unlikely before the trade deadline Thursday.
"Unless they give up Gasol, they're not going to get a top-level point guard," said a person familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

viaCeltics' Rajon Rondo is subject of trade talks - latimes.com.