Teams droppping 120+ on the regular nowadays...

[DAF86]

Cos they played fast, shot awesome, and took advantage of oxygen deprivation in the mile-high air; not because teams weren't playing defense or the rules were soft.

lol son. It wasn't just the Nuggetts. Every team back then put around 140 pts on the regular. The difference is that it wasn't because of the rules or a change in focus to attempt more 3´s. No, it was because nobody played defense back then. People need to stop being nostalgic gots, tbh.

[K...]

I wonder if anyone actually watches now days or if they know we're all device broken. If that were the case why not turn games into essentially highlight attempt set pieces?

[urunobili]

Not sure if I like it or not...

[Ginobili2Duncan]

Why even watch tbh? This current NBA isn't even entertaining anymore. They're trying too hard to appeal to casuals.

[rjv]

i knew the drop from :24 to :14 on the offensive board was going to impact the scoring but add that to teams generally opting in to raining 3s all over in an effort to be the next GS, along with rules that allow players like harden to get half their points from the free throw line and there you go. and i get that offense sells tickets but free throws don't, or at least all the whistles.

[marinoman]

Well 14 sec clocks on offensive rebounds lead to more possessions

[Coach X]

The number of good shooters from 3pt range has increased and, consequentially, the spacing is better. Shooters can barely be touched whilst post players can be pushed, smacked, etc. The new rules add difficulties to the defenses as players away from the ball can't be touched either. Small players are more useful than big guys so small ball is the rule and that makes teams on court faster and faster, speeding up the pace as well.

This is the basketball we have. To me, is not nice at all because it's completely unbalanced. The game looks more like a GlobeTrotters game rather than professional basketball. Post players have been thrown out from the league by the NBA and its ruling and referring. Why they don't apply the same contact criteria to the post-game they apply to the 3pt shooters?
Basketball is constantly evolving, swinging between extremes about inside/outside, individual/collective, high/low pace, contact and physicality, etc. Through the Beautiful Game basketball beauty peaked finding an almost perfect balance. First two good GSW years were enjoyable but, sadly, that style is radicalizing as we see in the Rockets and more and more teams following that path.

These 18/19 Spurs aren't contending for the ring so I'm happy with our team playing the romantic hero role, standing the test of time until the championship chances are higher.

[spurraider21]

i knew the drop from :24 to :14 on the offensive board was going to impact the scoring but add that to teams generally opting in to raining 3s all over in an effort to be the next GS, along with rules that allow players like harden to get half their points from the free throw line and there you go. and i get that offense sells tickets but free throws don't, or at least all the whistles.

why would the offensive board thing incentivize 3 point shooting?

[dabom]

why would the offensive board thing incentivize 3 point shooting?

Harder to set up a half court offense, especially after a rebound. Easier to chuck a 3 got.

[LaSíSí]

lol son. It wasn't just the Nuggetts. Every team back then put around 140 pts on the regular. The difference is that it wasn't because of the rules or a change in focus to attempt more 3´s. No, it was because nobody played defense back then. People need to stop being nostalgic gots, tbh.

They played defense, son; especially by today's standards.

[vander]

I think this should work in Spurs favor, teams are going to score all the time even against good athletic defenders working hard, so if you have terrible defenders how much difference does that even make? 130 points instead of 120?

play zone, switch on everything, go under screens, jump passing lanes, keep those old and unathletic legs fresh. cause even if they work their asses off fighting through screens and chasing guys around, they're still going to give up the basket.
Spurs need to play high risk high reward defense.

[baseline bum]

we don't have the personnel to outscore the majority of teams and we don't have the personnel to play top 5 defense to compensate that. We're ed. It just screams a mediocre, lottery bound team.

Can't win with the offense, can't win with the defense, yet this team is going to win 50 games?

[baseline bum]

They played defense, son; especially by today's standards.

Nobody played defense in the 80s until Detroit

[spurraider21]

Harder to set up a half court offense, especially after a rebound. Easier to chuck a 3 got.

i dont see it, we'd need numbers that more 3pointers are being taken after offensive rebounds to verify that. i get that the 14 second shot clock means more possessions and more FGA, leading to more points. but would need data to show that it specifically benefits 3pt shooting

[ducks]

denver has not given up 100
held gs to 98

[midnightpulp]

The offensive rebound rule is a in travesty to the sport. I can't take seriously the NBA as a legitimate league nor is NBA basketball a legitimate sport after implementing such a contrived rule to further increase scoring and pace to appeal to the twitterverse. I mean, , what other sport in the world would penalize a team for retaining possession after a missed shot? As bad as povertyball is, you don't see a 20 second countdown or some bull when they retain possession after the shot rebounds to a teammate. Don't see it in ice hockey, field hockey, lacrosse, or any other goal sport in the world.

NBA basketball is a gimmick.

[Spurminator]

I mean, , what other sport in the world would penalize a team for retaining possession after a missed shot?

How is it a penalty?

[midnightpulp]

How is it a penalty?

You get 24 seconds for an offensive possession in the NBA. The team that secures the offensive board now gets 10 less seconds for retaining possession. So defensive incompetence/offensive hustle isn't being rewarded fairly. In addition to speeding up pace and scoring (like the NBA in' needed it), this rule was implemented to also produce more last seconds shots at the end of the games (i.e. a team grabbing an o-board with 20 seconds left on the clock doesn't have enough time now run the clock out/induce intentional fouls).

[midnightpulp]

^in addition, this is just more of the NBA's agenda of marginalizing bigs. The value of offensive and defensive boards goes down.

[Spurminator]

You get 24 seconds for an offensive possession in the NBA. The team that secures the offensive board now gets 10 less seconds for retaining possession. So defensive incompetence/offensive hustle isn't being rewarded fairly. In addition to speeding up pace and scoring (like the NBA in' needed it), this rule was implemented to also produce more last seconds shots at the end of the games (i.e. a team grabbing an o-board with 20 seconds left on the clock doesn't have enough time now run the clock out/induce intentional fouls).

But they still get possession and 14 seconds to run their offense (or let time tick off), so it's not like the defense suddenly has less incentive to corral a defensive rebound.

If it's truly a penalty for offenses, then it should result in a much lower FG% on second possessions. I don't see that happening but I guess we'll have the numbers at the end of the season.

I think you're basically defining "penalty" as "less than what they've had in the past." To me, it's just a new standard, like going from 10 seconds to 8 seconds for a backcourt violation.

[Spurminator]

I much prefer the NBA boosting scoring through rule changes like this vs. what the NFL has done by increasing penalties to make defense more difficult. A 14 second clock reset doesn't fundamentally change a team or player's approach to a possession, or skew the advantage toward the offense. The defense still has every motivation to get a rebound on a missed shot, as does the offense.

[midnightpulp]

But they still get possession and 14 seconds to run their offense (or let time tick off), so it's not like the defense suddenly has less incentive to corral a defensive rebound.

If it's truly a penalty for offenses, then it should result in a much lower FG% on second possessions. I don't see that happening but I guess we'll have the numbers at the end of the season.

I think you're basically defining "penalty" as "less than what they've had in the past." To me, it's just a new standard, like going from 10 seconds to 8 seconds for a backcourt violation.

No. It's . No other sport in the world does this. And it's not equitable to a backcourt violation or anything of the sort. They quite literally changed a fundamental aspect of the game. And it's more than just about setting up offenses (and still, 24 seconds is a of a lot better than 14 seconds for setting up an offense). During the endgame, offensive rebounds are backbreakers because the team that retained possession can milk more and more clock. This rule devalues a fundamental aspect of basketball: rebounding.

It's working as intended, though. Already factored into tonight's game. LMA had a big o-board with 1:21 left. Spurs had to get a shot up at 1:12. Last year, you kill clock here till about the 1:05-1:00 min mark before shooting. And of course, the seconds this new ty rule saved gave the Lakers an extra possession. It's gimmick garbage for a gimmick league.

[midnightpulp]

I much prefer the NBA boosting scoring through rule changes like this vs. what the NFL has done by increasing penalties to make defense more difficult. A 14 second clock reset doesn't fundamentally change a team or player's approach to a possession, or skew the advantage toward the offense. The defense still has every motivation to get a rebound on a missed shot, as does the offense.

Scoring was fine. This rule change was unneeded.

[emanueldavidginobili]

These scores are bonkers

[midnightpulp]

Let's take a look at how the "Twitter Rule" affects the end game:

1:21

LaMarcus Aldridge offensive rebound
126 - 120

1:12

DeMar DeRozan misses 27-foot three point jumper
126 - 120

1:10

LaMarcus Aldridge offensive rebound
126 - 120

1:10

LaMarcus Aldridge makes two point shot
128 - 120

1:10

Lakers Full timeout
128 - 120

1:04

JaVale McGee makes 3-foot dunk (Kyle Kuzma assists)
128 - 122

41.7

Rudy Gay misses 23-foot three point jumper
128 - 122

39.6

Josh Hart defensive rebound
128 - 122

35.6

Kyle Kuzma makes 25-foot three point jumper (LeBron James assists)
128 - 125

12.5

Bryn Forbes misses 27-foot three point jumper
128 - 125

8.9

Josh Hart defensive rebound
128 - 125

3.3

LeBron James makes 28-foot running pullup jump shot
128 - 128

2.4

Spurs Full timeout
128 - 128

2.4

Johnathan Williams enters the game for JaVale McGee
128 - 128

1.4

DeMar DeRozan misses 26-foot three point shot
128 - 128

1.0

Spurs offensive team rebound
128 - 128

0.0

End of the 4th Quarter

LMA grabs an o-board with 1:21 left. DeFrozen takes a shot at 1:12 (5 seconds left on the "new clock.") LMA put back at 1:10. Last season, this sequence probably plays out: Defrozen shot at 1:01, LMA put back at :59.

So, last year the Lakers have :59 seconds to make their comeback. Let's look at how the Lakers come back would've played out last year.

Lakers time out at :59.

Quick 6 second McGee bucket. :53 seconds left.

Rudy Gay's missed shot to the Lakers rebound took 24.4 seconds.

29.6 seconds left.

Kuzma takes 4 seconds to hit a 3. Spurs ball with 25.6 seconds left. Lakers would be in intentional foul territory last year or at the very best, quickly rebound and call a time out, leaving ~1 second on the clock. But most coaches are intentionally fouling.

And that's exactly why the rule was implemented. To produce more late game dramatics. As if the NBA didn't have enough of that, either.