You don't have to play at the fastest pace in the league but you do have to play significantly faster than teams of yesteryear if you want to compete.
On a pts per possession basis......Transition offense > semi-transition > halfcourt offense where D is allowed to get set. Just like playing from the post or isoing is less efficient now than in the past. Obviously in sports, when a style goes one way, there is value in zigging while others zag but you can't swim too upstream so to speak.
Also, not every top tier team is equipped to play this way but if you are the better team (LAC in theory) you generally want to play at a faster pace as more possessions = more chance your edge adds up. You just don't want to put your worst defensive player on the other teams best offensive player in the most important possession of the game (Doc Rivers)...That's dumb in any era.
You can slow the game down as a strategic response in the right situation, but it is still going to be much faster than a 2001 pace still.
Yawn. Agree to disagree. Any coach can decide they want to control a tempo and slow down a game, focusing on defense, physicality, and hitting the boards. And most teams with an offensive mentality are going to be very uncomfortable in that scenario. I'm not buying your argument for a second.
You can play defense at a 100-105 possession pace though, you don't need to "slow the game down" to play defense. Doing what you said as far as using almost the entire shotclock is largely sub-optimal which is why no one tries to do it anymore. It would be like trying to win a superbowl throwing 17 passes a game. Maybe that will change someday, style isn't static (although I doubt it as these leagues are socially engineered for modern attention spans i.e more action, more scoring) but something like that type of offensive pace is swimming upstream in a way no team would try.
And offensive rebounding isn't a big part of gameplans anymore because transition D is more important. Tough to crash the boards when even the bums can hit transition 3's.
But if you're done watching the sport then these things probably don't interest you too much, I get it. Just don't switch to soccer man. So boring.
And offensive rebounding isn't a big part of gameplans anymore because transition D is more important. Tough to crash the boards when even the bums can hit transition 3's.
But if you're done watching the sport then these things probably don't interest you too much, I get it. Just don't switch to soccer man. So boring.
Anomalies happen, and football is a sport that has more heterogeneity in terms of style than basketball. More variance, more ways to skin a cat. You don't get to play Cam Newton in the NBA finals either
No analogy is perfect, but using the entire 24 second shotclock and pounding the air out of the ball is gonna be tough sledding nowadays.
If you don't like what I said that's fine, but it isn't a strange set of optics. Holding a team to 51 at half at that pace is good defense. Why would the Lakers play slower? They're scoring at will against an inferior 8 seed.
The Warriors were the fastest paced team in the league in 2015. The Spurs played at a significantly faster pace than teams 10 years earlier.
Being elite defensively still matters, just measuring it in bulk stats like pts allowed per game is useless.
Unless you change the rules or dimensions of the court, you're not going to get a big reduction in scoring/pace. Teams shoot 35 3's per game because it is mathematically prudent to do so. Has pros/cons but is what it is.
And that was the beginning of the pace/space era,
Yeah, a Carolina team that scored 500 points that seasonhno:
Figure of speech, how does it work? If you didn't understand the point I was making about sports evolving making different styles optimal and sub-optimal then I can't help you. But I think you did understand it and just didn't really have much to say so you took my NFL comment completely literally.
Obviously elite passing is the #1 trait that teams that win a superbowl have nowadays. But yes, if you have a historically elite defense and run good over a 3-4 game sample size in a high variance sport has that great equalizers like turnovers, you too can win! Jesus christ man.
The reasons for increased scoring IMO.
Pace- 50%
Analytics- 40%
Defensive effort 10% max.
In the 80's, 90's every time there was a kick ball or an offensive rebound the shot clock would reset to 24 seconds. Now it's 14 seconds. Which means you pull it out and reset you offense and the clock is gonna be down to less then 10 seconds and you better move. There is no more teams getting a couple offensive boards and being able to take a 1:15 off the clock on one time down the floor.
Then analytics. If you watch the game in the 80's 90's there were lots of shots being taken mid range 16-20 ft. As the numbers were analysed it turns out these are horrid shots. Even the best mid range shooters around, think Jeff Malone. Even if he shot 60% you'd be better off with a league average shooter jacking up 3's.
Pace- 50%
Analytics- 40%
Defensive effort 10% max.
In the 80's, 90's every time there was a kick ball or an offensive rebound the shot clock would reset to 24 seconds. Now it's 14 seconds. Which means you pull it out and reset you offense and the clock is gonna be down to less then 10 seconds and you better move. There is no more teams getting a couple offensive boards and being able to take a 1:15 off the clock on one time down the floor.
Then analytics. If you watch the game in the 80's 90's there were lots of shots being taken mid range 16-20 ft. As the numbers were analysed it turns out these are horrid shots. Even the best mid range shooters around, think Jeff Malone. Even if he shot 60% you'd be better off with a league average shooter jacking up 3's.
BFL, the way you interact on here is a strange set of optics.
Yes, I said pace/analytics and I'd add rule changes are the main reasons for the proliferation in scoring. And if a team goes back to a pace/play selection/shot selection from yesteryear, they will be at a disadvantage.
That is the entire point.....I mean I cut you slack because I figure based on your posts that you are a manic depressive but c'mon, don't be so dense.
Yes, I said pace/analytics and I'd add rule changes are the main reasons for the proliferation in scoring. And if a team goes back to a pace/play selection/shot selection from yesteryear, they will be at a disadvantage.
That is the entire point.....I mean I cut you slack because I figure based on your posts that you are a manic depressive but c'mon, don't be so dense.
Sorry, but no (Ad Hominems don't help your argument). And please stop saying that people shouldn't take you literally. You're on a forum posting words (of course people are going to take them literally). You continuously ignored the defense argument. I appreciate Ladeda's comment about 10% defensive effort max (not sure why you have such a hard time admitting it). His point of the clock reset was also a valid one (also not mentioned by you). I also pointed out the flaws in your pacing since many of the recent champions did indeed play at a sub 100 level. I also gave you an example on football, and of course, I could throw in that offensive juggernaut with the Patriots/Rams (but no, no one should take you literally). Give it a rest already. We have a disagreement. I'd like to see some defense. Sorry if that's an issue for you.
Have you stopped watching the NFL and MLB to because they score a lot more points and runs then they did 20 years ago ?
