Bulls: The Last Dance do entary

[ambchang]

lol what? it never once disappeared. in fact it has basically been at the root of this whole discussion

Must have missed it, when did you address how the league went from having 5 top ten scorers being post players to having 8 overnight?

lmao so you are saying that it was virtually impossible for perimeter oriented players to score lots of points prior to the rule change

I said that? Talk about a strawman.

absolutely true. but also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was clearly the #3 scorer on the team behind shaq and kobe. losing him whether its due to departure, or due to lack of productivity doesnt change the fact that the scoring punch he brought to the team needed to be replaced. it was very clear that kobe handled the majority of that difference by having an increased share in the offense.

Shaq scored more too, so did Fisher and Fox

[QUOTE=Neo.;10139777]hm where was anything like that even remotely hinted? if i recall, YOU were the one who claimed that rices scoring was replaced by fox and fisher. i provided proof that kobe handled some of it as well. but at no time did i claim that people playing the same position picked up the scoring slack. would you like to provide proof of anyone on the team who picked up the slack more than kobe did?

What? Didn't you came up with Kobe picked up that scoring? if that's not your argument, I am not sure what your argument is then.

you're the one who is making this claim that the rule changes is the single biggest contributor, and that there has NEVER been a year where 6-7 wing players had a dramatic scoring increase. would you like to back this up with some proof?

Ummm ... I can't find another year like that? You want to find another year that did?

you act as if there has never been perimeter players who put up massive scoring numbers prior to the rule change, when the truth is there has always been plenty. the rule changes helped to an extent i dont disagree, but id say the bigger factor by far was the success off michael jordan. coaches realized that running plays through wings allows for far more versatility on offense. young wing players grew up wanting to imitate mike. therefore in middle school, high school, AAU, etc... coaches began focusing offenses more on wings than on big men, resulting in drafts in the later 90s having an increase in skilled wing players, and a decrease in skilled big men. you seriously think that there was a remotely comparable number of skilled big men in the drafts from 96-05, compared to 85-95? or a comparable number of skilled wing players in drafts from 85-95, compare to 96-05? please. the big man was being phased out, while the wing was being more incorporated well before the rule change was made.

And they all decided to make that scoring jump at the same year?

And when did I ever say perimeter players can't? It's just that it's easier with rule changes because the rules were specifically changed to boost scoring, with perimeter scoring being the main focus. It wasn't even a secret, the league talked openly about having to change the rules because scoring was terrible. They changed it, scoring went up, the teams had to adapt defensive schemes to deal with it. Players like Jaren Jackson became useless overnight because they can no longer hand-check.

and even then, as has been clearly noted a number of times by multiple people, immediately after hand-checking was toned down, zone was allowed, which received plenty of complaints from perimeter players that it made it much tougher offensively. not to mention, players had been figuring out that its not hard to beat a handcheck by simply swiping away at the arm, and then it pretty much was a wide open lane to the basket because it frequently throws the defenders balance off. oh and of course players figuring out loopholes in the hand-checking rule anyways with swingthrough fouls. harden and KD would average 25 FTs a game if blatant handchecking were actually used on them consistently.

Yes, and scoring went down the following year because zone defense came into play. So does rule change have or does not have impact on perimeter players scoring? Do they only impact perimeter players scoring when it makes it tougher for perimeter players, but suggesting that they make it easier is sheer stupidity?

truth is, handchecking never worked against elite scorers. its simply a coverup for slower players, or guys with poor defensive footwork. and it only works against people who aren't particularly good at scoring anyways. lets not act like elite defenders like payton, pippen or rodman ever successfully shut down elite scoring wings like jordan, dominique, penny, kobe, clyde. maybe frustrate them for a game or a quarter, but that was about the extent of it. they all ultimately got ate up just like any other defender.

I am not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. Payton had a significant impact on Jordan on the largest stage in the Finals. Pippen did that to Magic, Rodman and Dumars did it to Jordan in the playoffs.

Yes, handchecking benefits slow guys, they benefit quick guys too. How would it not benefit a quick guy when they have another weapon at their disposal?

Check the rule changes after the 98-99 season:

No contact with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the frontcourt below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only.
Neither the offensive player nor the defender will be allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legallyobtained a position.
Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to Point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player.
Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited.

How can this have no impact on perimeter defense, or at least a minor one? The league designed this to boost scoring.

[ambchang]

lol for good measure i went back and examined these stats only to realize that the "evidence" that you presented that the rule change is the far and away the biggest reason for increased perimeter play is even more trash than i initially thought

your claim is that the league went from five big men, low post players being the the top 10 PPG in 99-00, to two in 00-01, and that we've never even remotely seen a change like this before. so there were three big guys who dropped off the list between those years: Malone, KG and Timmy

first, lets not kid ourselves into thinking KG was a true low post player, he was about as perimeter oriented of a big man as there was in the league. his "low post" buckets was mostly putbacks. he clearly favored using his perimeter skills and shooting long fadeaways. but for the sake of argument, we will consider KG as a low post scorer

at 9 and 10 on the list of top 10 ppg in 99-00 was KG and Duncan. the next four guys (11-14: Finley, Kobe, Marbury, Ray) were all within 1.1 ppg of being ahead of both KG and Timmy. it's not like there was some massive margin to overcome here.

also karl malone was 37 years old. yep, im sure age had nothing to do with his scoring drop (cue a highly funny and original joke from ambchang about emojis to avoid addressing how trash his point is)


lets also consider what happened the next year. in 01-02, timmy and karl ended up right back on the top 10 (oddly enough, Karl being back on there despite another drop in scoring average), and if not for missing 30 games for injury, webber would have qualified to be in that list too, bumping it back up to 4 of the top 10 ppg scorers being bigs. based off your conclusion, i figured even more perimeter players would have ended up on the list, or at the very least, the list standing pat. it didnt. same thing for 02-03.

well how about we rewind in time a bit now? in 98-99, there were 4, arguably 5 low post oriented scorers in the top 10. 97-98, same thing, 4, arguably 5. then 96-97? hm, it drops to 3, with just Malone, Olajuwon and Ewing, but shaq missed some games so lets add him and the number is 4; a drop regardless. then 95-96 8 of them top 10 were post oriented, and that's generally how it was prior to that. so it appears the big adjustment from bigs to wings began not in 00-01, but in 96-97 (where it dropped from 8 of the top 10 ppg scorers being low post big men, to 4, which is a bigger drop than 5 down to 2, only to go back up to 4 the next couple years), where we saw Iverson enter the league, and then some jumps in scoring from Glen Rice (5ppg increase), Spreewell (5ppg increase), Kendall Gill (nearly 8ppg increase), and Payton (2.5 ppg increase), along with quite a few other perimeter players having noticeable jumps in scoring but didn't quite crack the top 10, while Robinson and Barkley began to age out. and the league steadily evolved from there.

and what was the main reason for so many jumps in perimeter scoring in 96-97? i guess we could chalk it up to the fact that teams were taking more advantage of the shortened 3pt line. or maybe its simply a matter of perimeter scoring being proven to be more effective than a slow paced, dump-it-down offense, resulting in more skilled perimeter players entering the league and developing, while big men were aging out and not being replaced due to less skilled big men in the pipeline.

Not a perimeter player doesn't mean a low post player.

If you want to argue Garnett isn't a low post player, he sure as wasn't a perimeter player.

[Neo.]

Must have missed it, when did you address how the league went from having 5 top ten scorers being post players to having 8 overnight?

i dont think either of us addressed the league going from having 5 top ten post scorers increasing to 8 overnight. but i do recall i showed that there was a big drop from the 95-96 season to the 96-97 season, where it went from 8 to 4. a much bigger drop than the 5 to 3/2 argument in 99-00 to 00-01 that you presented.

I said that? Talk about a strawman.

you said the "the rule changes enabled that". you did not say "the rule changes amongst other factors enabled that" or anything remotely close to that. so based off your quote, yes that is what you said.

Shaq scored more too, so did Fisher and Fox

actually, shaq scored a full point less per game. id tell you to do your research, but throughout our entire discussion, its abundantly clear that you don't, and prefer to just make things up to support your crappy arguments, in hopes someone doesnt call you out for your garbage

What? Didn't you came up with Kobe picked up that scoring? if that's not your argument, I am not sure what your argument is then.

i said he picked up some of it. i never said he picked it all up. in fact i very clearly claimed that fisher and fox also were other players who picked up the scoring. do you even read before you post this crap?

Ummm ... I can't find another year like that? You want to find another year that did?

i cant even find a single year that fits your claim, since i also proved that there werent 6-7 perimeter players who had a dramatic scoring increase. your claims showed there was 4 with large increases, a few others with minor increases, and one whom you claimed had a dramatic increase, actually had a decrease. great proof

And they all decided to make that scoring jump at the same year?

if you take a greater number of shots per game, then simple logic says that theres a high chance you will have a scoring output increase. all those guys did. whether it was their choice, or the coaches choice, or someone elses choice, i cannot say. but what i can say, is they all took more shots, which resulted in more points.

And when did I ever say perimeter players can't? It's just that it's easier with rule changes because the rules were specifically changed to boost scoring, with perimeter scoring being the main focus. It wasn't even a secret, the league talked openly about having to change the rules because scoring was terrible. They changed it, scoring went up, the teams had to adapt defensive schemes to deal with it.

i dont disagree. i never did disagree. i just dont feel its the primary reason, and the only reason this discussion went on is because im tired of your usual shtick of posting lies and making up trash to back your weak arguments up. just admit you were wrong on some points and move on.

Players like Jaren Jackson became useless overnight because they can no longer hand-check.

its not like he was a particularly useful player to begin with. but im sure some of it also had to do with the fact that he was heading into his mid 30s when they made the rule. but no, it was solely "because they can no longer hand-check".

Yes, and scoring went down the following year because zone defense came into play. So does rule change have or does not have impact on perimeter players scoring? Do they only impact perimeter players scoring when it makes it tougher for perimeter players, but suggesting that they make it easier is sheer stupidity?

never said that at all. again, ive said the whole time that i dont disagree that removing hand checking helped to some degree. i dont think it did much to help elite scorers, since sometimes handchecking defenders can actually be an advantage since it often leads to poor defensive footwork and balance, as well as the fact that any elite scorer never had problems dealing with hand-checking to begin with.

I am not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. Payton had a significant impact on Jordan on the largest stage in the Finals. Pippen did that to Magic, Rodman and Dumars did it to Jordan in the playoffs.

so it was purely handchecking that impacted those guys? so basically you are saying that other guys werent already handchecking them to begin with. so if only a few select players are handchecking, then why would it be some major league-wide defensive nuke that handchecking was more enforced, as you seem to suggest?

or maybe... just maybe... could it be that those guys were elite defenders who had exceptional athleticism, strength, balance and footwork that allowed them to match up better with these elite offensive players?

Yes, handchecking benefits slow guys, they benefit quick guys too. How would it not benefit a quick guy when they have another weapon at their disposal?

never said it wasnt beneficial. just that it wasnt much benefit for guarding guys like mike, nique, penny, kobe, clyde, and other elite perimeter scorers. they simply found ways to score, and often would use handchecking to their benefit by swiping at the handcheck to negate it and put the defender in poor defensive position.

Check the rule changes after the 98-99 season:

No contact with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the frontcourt below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only.
Neither the offensive player nor the defender will be allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legallyobtained a position.
Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to Point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player.
Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited.

How can this have no impact on perimeter defense, or at least a minor one? The league designed this to boost scoring.

never said it wasnt. just that its not the sole, or even primary reason why there are a lot of skilled perimeter scorers in the league today.

plus as lefty has brought out several times, handchecking had been banned a lot longer before, but eventually wasnt really enforced. in fact, back in 76-77, a rule change declared that handchecking would be allowed to an extent, as long as players didn't impede their opponents progress (which honestly seems to make handchecking kind of useless, since the whole point of it is to impede their progress), then it was banned in 78-79, and that's how the rule stood for years. obviously enforcement of the rule subsided over time, but then they began to enforce it more again in 94-95, gave more clarification in 00-01, more clarification in 04-05, and now that offense went back up, everyone is pretty much handchecking all over again, just not as blatantly. instead of putting hands on a player before they make their move, they wait until the drive starts, then if they make contact with each other, you can see any decent defender is using their hand to hold, grab and impede the opponents progress. maybe instead of just pointing at rule changes, watch the games, and you will see plenty of handchecking being done. for example, watch luka and you will see just how much he gets grabbed and handchecked since hes not as quick as other elite scorers, but has plenty of tricks on how to beat it.

[Neo.]

Not a perimeter player doesn't mean a low post player.

If you want to argue Garnett isn't a low post player, he sure as wasn't a perimeter player.

oh okay, so basically you have no way to refute the lies and made up claims you gave, except to argue "KG isn't a perimeter player "

thanks for playing.

[ambchang]

i dont think either of us addressed the league going from having 5 top ten post scorers increasing to 8 overnight. but i do recall i showed that there was a big drop from the 95-96 season to the 96-97 season, where it went from 8 to 4. a much bigger drop than the 5 to 3/2 argument in 99-00 to 00-01 that you presented.

You mean the year when Shaq was not qualified because he didn't play enough games, Robinson got hurt, and Barkley started to miss significant games? The only one who really didn't have any major injury impacts but had a big drop off in points was Mourning.

The same couldn't be said of 99-00 to 00-01.

you said the "the rule changes enabled that". you did not say "the rule changes amongst other factors enabled that" or anything remotely close to that. so based off your quote, yes that is what you said.

You do know it is possible to do something without an agent to enable, right?

actually, shaq scored a full point less per game. id tell you to do your research, but throughout our entire discussion, its abundantly clear that you don't, and prefer to just make things up to support your crappy arguments, in hopes someone doesnt call you out for your garbage

My mistake, wrong year.

i said he picked up some of it. i never said he picked it all up. in fact i very clearly claimed that fisher and fox also were other players who picked up the scoring. do you even read before you post this crap?

So Kobe picked up 6 points, while the others didn't increase by as much? How do you figure?

i cant even find a single year that fits your claim, since i also proved that there werent 6-7 perimeter players who had a dramatic scoring increase. your claims showed there was 4 with large increases, a few others with minor increases, and one whom you claimed had a dramatic increase, actually had a decrease. great proof

Oh wow, really, only 4 with large increases? I can see that absolutely positively blew my entire point out of the water.

if you take a greater number of shots per game, then simple logic says that theres a high chance you will have a scoring output increase. all those guys did. whether it was their choice, or the coaches choice, or someone elses choice, i cannot say. but what i can say, is they all took more shots, which resulted in more points.

Of course, and why would perimeter players get a larger percentage of the shots? Because the rules made it much easier to do so.

Simple logic also says that if a defender cannot physically grab and hold you, it's easier for you to score, and as such, smart teams will exploit that with good perimeter scorers.

i dont disagree. i never did disagree. i just dont feel its the primary reason, and the only reason this discussion went on is because im tired of your usual shtick of posting lies and making up trash to back your weak arguments up. just admit you were wrong on some points and move on.

So wait, you didn't agree it being the primary reason meant that my arguments are lies? What was the primary reason then? Was it that players wanted to be like Mike like you mentioned a few post ago?

its not like he was a particularly useful player to begin with. but im sure some of it also had to do with the fact that he was heading into his mid 30s when they made the rule. but no, it was solely "because they can no longer hand-check".

Do you know what solely means? You seem to have a penchant of picking one point, extrapolate, disprove that extrapolation and claim victory. It is amusing to say the least.

never said that at all. again, ive said the whole time that i dont disagree that removing hand checking helped to some degree. i dont think it did much to help elite scorers, since sometimes handchecking defenders can actually be an advantage since it often leads to poor defensive footwork and balance, as well as the fact that any elite scorer never had problems dealing with hand-checking to begin with.

You were saying something about posting lies and backing up the crap or something like that?

Pippen, one of the best perimeter defenders, seems to agree with me: https://www.basketballnetwork.net/pi...ed-basketball/

But then you will go on and on about how it is arguable Pippen can be considered one of the greatest perimeter players of all time.

so it was purely handchecking that impacted those guys? so basically you are saying that other guys werent already handchecking them to begin with. so if only a few select players are handchecking, then why would it be some major league-wide defensive nuke that handchecking was more enforced, as you seem to suggest?

or maybe... just maybe... could it be that those guys were elite defenders who had exceptional athleticism, strength, balance and footwork that allowed them to match up better with these elite offensive players?

You really need help understanding when you should extrapolate and talk about purely, enablement, only, primary and such.

It's also comical because in the last post, you said "lets not act like elite defenders like payton, pippen or rodman ever successfully shut down elite scoring wings like jordan, dominique, penny, kobe, clyde. maybe frustrate them for a game or a quarter, but that was about the extent of it. they all ultimately got ate up just like any other defender.", but then now, it's about how they were exceptional athletes. Or are you going to talk about what "Shut down" means?

never said it wasnt beneficial. just that it wasnt much benefit for guarding guys like mike, nique, penny, kobe, clyde, and other elite perimeter scorers. they simply found ways to score, and often would use handchecking to their benefit by swiping at the handcheck to negate it and put the defender in poor defensive position.

Backup? Would love to see someone say that they loved being hand-checked because they can put the defender out of position.

never said it wasnt. just that its not the sole, or even primary reason why there are a lot of skilled perimeter scorers in the league today.

We will disagree on this. I see handchecking's demise helping perimeter players, and as such, teams put heavy emphasis in developing perimeter players, where every seasons in the past had around 5 of the top 10 scorers being low post players (in general) where it is mostly 2 or 3 players in today's league.

plus as lefty has brought out several times, handchecking had been banned a lot longer before, but eventually wasnt really enforced. in fact, back in 76-77, a rule change declared that handchecking would be allowed to an extent, as long as players didn't impede their opponents progress (which honestly seems to make handchecking kind of useless, since the whole point of it is to impede their progress), then it was banned in 78-79, and that's how the rule stood for years. obviously enforcement of the rule subsided over time, but then they began to enforce it more again in 94-95, gave more clarification in 00-01, more clarification in 04-05, and now that offense went back up, everyone is pretty much handchecking all over again, just not as blatantly. instead of putting hands on a player before they make their move, they wait until the drive starts, then if they make contact with each other, you can see any decent defender is using their hand to hold, grab and impede the opponents progress. maybe instead of just pointing at rule changes, watch the games, and you will see plenty of handchecking being done. for example, watch luka and you will see just how much he gets grabbed and handchecked since hes not as quick as other elite scorers, but has plenty of tricks on how to beat it.

Does your world only live in black and white? Of course handchecking lives on to some degree, it's impossible to call every call. But without handchecking as a primary defensive tool, perimeter scoring took off.

oh okay, so basically you have no way to refute the lies and made up claims you gave, except to argue "KG isn't a perimeter player "

thanks for playing.

Point is, if you can't tell the difference between a Shaq, KG and Kobe in their offensive plays, there is no point in arguing.

If you do, apply that to your post, and retype it.

[Spurminator]

I feel like I never hear anyone propose the most likely reason Michael Jordan retired in 1993 to play baseball.

Someone made a bet with him that he couldn't make the Major Leagues.

[Spurtacular]

Take away the star calls, Jordan is a 43 FG% guy on a lower volume of shots.

[Neo.]

this is going to be my last reply to this.

You mean the year when Shaq was not qualified because he didn't play enough games, Robinson got hurt, and Barkley started to miss significant games? The only one who really didn't have any major injury impacts but had a big drop off in points was Mourning.

well if you actually read my post, you would have seen i addressed the shaq aspect and added him to the number

we have no idea what robinson would have scored, but we do know he was on the downhill of his career at that point. barkley was too, even more so. thats some major picking and choosing. not a shocker though, you do have a history of it.

The same couldn't be said of 99-00 to 00-01.

ah i get it. so injury is an acceptable excuse for a decrease in post scorers. but an actual decrease in post scorers (in that many of the previously dominant post scorers had retired or gotten old and less effective, and werent replaced with new ones because recent drafts had more wing talent than low post talent), isn't an acceptable excuse?

mind. blown.

You do know it is possible to do something without an agent to enable, right?

neat.

My mistake, wrong year.

lmao no it wasnt a "wrong year" mistake. it was you making crap up. if you simply looked at the stat, which any re with a computer is capable of doing, then you would have seen. but no, you as usual, like to make stuff up to fit your agenda, hoping no one calls you out on it.

So Kobe picked up 6 points, while the others didn't increase by as much? How do you figure?

hm idk maybe because kobe is a better scorer than they were, so he picked up more of the scoring slack than the others? at this point youre literally just asking questions to hang on to god knows what, must be some weird pride or something you have

Oh wow, really, only 4 with large increases? I can see that absolutely positively blew my entire point out of the water.

well when you claimed it was 6-7, 4 is easily less.

especially when compared to the other year i pointed out, in 96-97, where i already mentioned three perimeter players with significant increases in scoring. lets find a few more, shall we?

doug christie had an increase of 7ppg. anthony peeler had an increase of 4.8ppg. eddie jones had an increase of 4.4ppg. david wesley had an increase of 4.5ppg. amongst others. so now there are actually more cases in 96-97 of perimeter scoring average increases, than 00-01.

granted, we could go back and forth doing this until we check the averages of every player (and im not about to do that, but if you are butthurt enough to do so, be my guest). point is, 00-01 was not the ONLY year with a large number of perimeter players having noticeable scoring increases, as you seem to suggest.

Of course, and why would perimeter players get a larger percentage of the shots? Because the rules made it much easier to do so.

Simple logic also says that if a defender cannot physically grab and hold you, it's easier for you to score, and as such, smart teams will exploit that with good perimeter scorers.

technically, by rule they were never allowed to do that to begin with. refs would just occasionally allow players to get away with it. oh wait, kind of like they do today.

So wait, you didn't agree it being the primary reason meant that my arguments are lies? What was the primary reason then? Was it that players wanted to be like Mike like you mentioned a few post ago?

no, the lies were the bits of "proof" you gave, much of which turned out to be incorrect. such as there never having been a year with such a drop off of low post scorers in the top 10 ppg scorers, or that ray allen had a significant scoring increase in 00-01, or that shaq increased his scoring output after glen rice left, or that there was never a year that had a massive number of perimeter players with significant scoring increases.

i feel the primary reason was that more talented perimeter players started being drafted, while there was a noticeable decrease in the amount of talented low post scorers.

Do you know what solely means? You seem to have a penchant of picking one point, extrapolate, disprove that extrapolation and claim victory. It is amusing to say the least.

lol not even addressing the point. but i guess in your world, jaren jackson is a high quality NBA player, whos career ended because he couldnt hand check anymore, when hundreds of other basketball players continued to be effective without the handcheck.

You were saying something about posting lies and backing up the crap or something like that?

Pippen, one of the best perimeter defenders, seems to agree with me: https://www.basketballnetwork.net/pi...ed-basketball/

But then you will go on and on about how it is arguable Pippen can be considered one of the greatest perimeter players of all time.

idk why you keep going back to this point that ive repeatedly agreed about, that handchecking did have an overall effect on the league, and that it helped promote an increase in perimeter scoring.

i dont agree with the notion that many have that handchecking would suddenly make elite modern scorers ineffective, or that MJ would average 45 in todays league because theres no handchecking.

i dont agree that handchecking is the single biggest reason for perimeter play being a more focal point of offenses.

You really need help understanding when you should extrapolate and talk about purely, enablement, only, primary and such.

It's also comical because in the last post, you said "lets not act like elite defenders like payton, pippen or rodman ever successfully shut down elite scoring wings like jordan, dominique, penny, kobe, clyde. maybe frustrate them for a game or a quarter, but that was about the extent of it. they all ultimately got ate up just like any other defender.", but then now, it's about how they were exceptional athletes. Or are you going to talk about what "Shut down" means?

you tell me. did they shut down MJ? or did they simply make him work harder, perhaps resulting in the occasional bad game?

Backup? Would love to see someone say that they loved being hand-checked because they can put the defender out of position.

lmao talk about a strawman

anyone who has played a lick of organized basketball knows that is a basic fundamental taught to players on how to deal with handchecking.

We will disagree on this. I see handchecking's demise helping perimeter players, and as such, teams put heavy emphasis in developing perimeter players, where every seasons in the past had around 5 of the top 10 scorers being low post players (in general) where it is mostly 2 or 3 players in today's league.

fair enough. i obviously cant change your mind, nor can you change mine. i just wanted you to see that you posted a lot of lies and made up stuff.

Does your world only live in black and white? Of course handchecking lives on to some degree, it's impossible to call every call.

But without handchecking as a primary defensive tool, perimeter scoring took off.

neat.

Point is, if you can't tell the difference between a Shaq, KG and Kobe in their offensive plays, there is no point in arguing.

If you do, apply that to your post, and retype it.

point is, quit posting lies and making stuff up. if you just personally dont care for a different style of basketball, so be it. if you personally think that handchecking is the biggest reason for perimeter scoring to increase, so be it. just dont make up lies to back up your argument.

im done with this. post whatever replies you want, its going nowhere anyways, and ive said what i wanted to say. i really dont care to argue anymore with someone who is so incredibly insecure that he resorts to lying and making things up just to back up a personal opinion.

[FrostKing]

[Spurtacular]

I feel like I never hear anyone propose the most likely reason Michael Jordan retired in 1993 to play baseball.

Someone made a bet with him that he couldn't make the Major Leagues.

Probably cos that's not the most likely reason, Sadbert.

[LkrFan]

[lefty]

Why The Last Dance shouldn’t influence the GOAT debate

“The Last Dance” disqualified itself as viable evidence in the GOAT debate around the 59-minute mark of Episode 1. That’s when credits began to roll, and the first three names of executive producers flashed onto your TV screen. There was Mike Tollin, who originally pitched the project. And there were Curtis Polk and Estee Portnoy – business partner and manager/spokeswoman, respectively, to one Michael Jordan.
What they and countless others have made is in many ways a masterpiece. It’s driving unprecedented ratings and quenching sports thirsts. It’s enjoyable. It’s captivating. It’s nostalgia-inducing for some. It’s educational for others.
It becomes problematic, though, when Jordan’s people frame it as something more. David Falk, Jordan’s longtime agent, did just that this week. “If you are not legally blind and you watch this 10 hours and don't realize this is the greatest player of all time,” he told ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt, “you should probably start watching roller derby."
Falk isn’t the first person to hold up the do entary as proof of MJ’s GOAT status. He certainly won’t be the last. Millions of people share his opinion. And 10 hours of vintage footage and emotional interviews are confirmation bias’ dream.
But Falk isn’t helping. He’s actually feeding an unpopular-but-not-unsubstantiated view of “The Last Dance” as Jordan propaganda. It’s a view supported by the doc’s tendency to rely overwhelmingly on Jordan’s version of events – and, of course, by those credits, too.
It’s why the past four Sundays aren’t proof of anything. Jordan might be the GOAT. But not because he, his business associates and a team of talented storytellers tell us he is.
Falk made the GOAT pitch for his friend as an indirect response to a question about why , and why now . What pushed Jordan, a famously private figure in retirement, to agree to unseal the behind-the-scenes footage? And why, after two decades of refusing similar approaches, did he decide to participate in a groundbreaking do entary now?

Perhaps it’s relevant that Jordan made that decision literally while LeBron James and the Cavaliers were parading their Larry O’Brien trophy through the streets of Cleveland in 2016.

And perhaps that’s why Falk, after rambling for a bit, brought up the LeBron comparisons, and transitioned into his line about blind people and roller derbies.
Van Pelt began the conversation with a wide-open question. In that answer, too, Falk quickly arrived at a statement about “what really made Michael Jordan the incredible GOAT of all time.”

So why did Jordan agree to “The Last Dance”? We’ll probably never get a full explanation. But we’d be naive to think legacy wasn’t on his mind. We’d also be naive to ignore that his company, Jump 23, is an (unlisted) partner on the project. And that his business associates, and specifically the woman in charge of managing his public image, are executive producers. Perhaps they care a bit about how that legacy is crafted.
And perhaps that’s why the entire story revolves around Jordan’s perspective, occasionally to a fault. Perhaps it’s why, when the narrative arrives at his flaws, it leaves with Jordan turning the media’s coverage of them into motivation. Perhaps it’s why, when attention turns to Scottie Pippen’s flaws, Pippen – one of the best players of his generation, a beloved teammate, and an absolutely essential part of the three-peats – rarely gets the same narrative-driving privilege.
“The Last Dance” is wonderful entertainment. It just isn’t journalism. Which is absolutely fine … as long as we don’t view it as that.
Falk said on ESPN that Jordan “wanted to see the story told.” What he really got was a chance to tell it. Which, well … if LeBron’s production company spent multiple years working on a 10-hour do entary that showed why he is the GOAT, would you believe that one too?
This is not a column about the GOAT debate. It’s a column about not letting an inherently biased retelling of one contestant’s career settle the debate.
“The Last Dance” allows millions of us to see, hear, feel Michael Jordan like we never have before. Its brilliance is the look in his eyes when he senses disrespect; the tears that well and the emotions that surface; the heartfelt monologue that closed Episode 7.
It’s a unique look at, as Falk said, “his mind.” And “his approach, his concentration, his devotion – unparalleled.”
It’s also a subjective look at one slice of basketball history. It’s a useful perspective. But given whose perspective it is, don’t let it be a definitive one.


https://sports.yahoo.com/why-the-las...021715190.html

[benefactor]

^translation...all the les, money and fame in the world can't mask your insecurities. It's like the stories about him bullying teammates. Bullies bully people because shaming someone allows them to stay at a place where they can't be opposed...because being opposed would expose the false confidence they cloak themselves with.

[lefty]

^translation...all the les, money and fame in the world can't mask your insecurities. It's like the stories about him bullying teammates. Bullies bully people because shaming someone allows them to stay at a place where they can't be opposed...because being opposed would expose the false confidence they cloak themselves with.

This

[ambchang]

^translation...all the les, money and fame in the world can't mask your insecurities. It's like the stories about him bullying teammates. Bullies bully people because shaming someone allows them to stay at a place where they can't be opposed...because being opposed would expose the false confidence they cloak themselves with.

Bill Cartwright proved this for us.

[ambchang]

this is going to be my last reply to this.


well if you actually read my post, you would have seen i addressed the shaq aspect and added him to the number

And missed the other 2.

we have no idea what robinson would have scored, but we do know he was on the downhill of his career at that point. barkley was too, even more so. thats some major picking and choosing. not a shocker though, you do have a history of it.

And the year after he came back, significantly hobbled, and still finished 10th in the league in scoring.

ah i get it. so injury is an acceptable excuse for a decrease in post scorers. but an actual decrease in post scorers (in that many of the previously dominant post scorers had retired or gotten old and less effective, and werent replaced with new ones because recent drafts had more wing talent than low post talent), isn't an acceptable excuse?

mind. blown.

I am sure being injured and not being able to play should be considered an excuse for not having players in the top ten.

That said, it's clear that post players are cyclical, as there are just a smaller number of 7 footers in the world, and them being good in basketball is just wildly cyclical. That said, it's been a 20 year streak with no low post impact players, where players as skilled and dominant as Anthony Davis, KAT, Jokic, Embiid aren't having overwhelmingly positive impact to their team's success, at least not the degree of the post day plays, and that is largely due to the changing game play styles of today vs. 20 years ago, which was driven by changes in perimeter defensive rules that allows easier and more effective perimeter scoring.

neat.

Apparently you don't, nor do you have the ability to admit to error.

lmao no it wasnt a "wrong year" mistake. it was you making crap up. if you simply looked at the stat, which any re with a computer is capable of doing, then you would have seen. but no, you as usual, like to make stuff up to fit your agenda, hoping no one calls you out on it.

Hey, don't believe me, I mis-read the year and read the numbers in 99-00.

hm idk maybe because kobe is a better scorer than they were, so he picked up more of the scoring slack than the others? at this point youre literally just asking questions to hang on to god knows what, must be some weird pride or something you have

And he picked up on those open jumpers Rice was getting?

well when you claimed it was 6-7, 4 is easily less.

Stackhouse - 6.2 ppg
Kobe - 6 ppg
Iverson - 2.7 ppg
Ray Allen - -0.1ppg
Pierce - 5.8 ppg
marbury - 1.7 ppg
T-Mac - 11.4 (yes, it was mostly because he had a largely different role)
Carter - 1.9 ppg

So I count 7. I am not even counting Rip Hamilton, Peja, and Steve Francis because they clearly were growing as perimeter scorers.

especially when compared to the other year i pointed out, in 96-97, where i already mentioned three perimeter players with significant increases in scoring. lets find a few more, shall we?

doug christie had an increase of 7ppg. anthony peeler had an increase of 4.8ppg. eddie jones had an increase of 4.4ppg. david wesley had an increase of 4.5ppg. amongst others. so now there are actually more cases in 96-97 of perimeter scoring average increases, than 00-01.

If you want to go that route, I can count Rip, Peja, Francis, even Miller who was clearly on the downward of his career had a minor uptick.

granted, we could go back and forth doing this until we check the averages of every player (and im not about to do that, but if you are butthurt enough to do so, be my guest). point is, 00-01 was not the ONLY year with a large number of perimeter players having noticeable scoring increases, as you seem to suggest.

No it wasn't, it was the year with the greatest number though.

technically, by rule they were never allowed to do that to begin with. refs would just occasionally allow players to get away with it. oh wait, kind of like they do today.

And yet that year was the year the league heavily clamped down.

no, the lies were the bits of "proof" you gave, much of which turned out to be incorrect. such as there never having been a year with such a drop off of low post scorers in the top 10 ppg scorers, or that ray allen had a significant scoring increase in 00-01, or that shaq increased his scoring output after glen rice left, or that there was never a year that had a massive number of perimeter players with significant scoring increases.

Man, hard to find somebody as sensitive as you. I admit I misread the Shaq year.

i feel the primary reason was that more talented perimeter players started being drafted, while there was a noticeable decrease in the amount of talented low post scorers.

And I agree with that as well. The reason is that the rules were changed such that low post players are less effective as before, and as such the emphasis is put on perimeter skill development.

lol not even addressing the point. but i guess in your world, jaren jackson is a high quality NBA player, whos career ended because he couldnt hand check anymore, when hundreds of other basketball players continued to be effective without the handcheck.

Do you have a habit of extrapolating and argue another point to claim victory, you know, like strawman? It seems to be your only move.

idk why you keep going back to this point that ive repeatedly agreed about, that handchecking did have an overall effect on the league, and that it helped promote an increase in perimeter scoring.

i dont agree with the notion that many have that handchecking would suddenly make elite modern scorers ineffective, or that MJ would average 45 in todays league because theres no handchecking.

Did I say that?

i dont agree that handchecking is the single biggest reason for perimeter play being a more focal point of offenses.

And that is where we disagree. I believe it made perimeter scoring much more effective, 3s easier to launch, and allowed an entirely different type of effective offense (3s based) that wasn't viable 20 years ago. As such, heavier and heavier emphasis moves towards perimeter skills development.

you tell me. did they shut down MJ? or did they simply make him work harder, perhaps resulting in the occasional bad game?

27.3ppg on 41.5% shooting for an entire series? I would say that is shut down. Jordan's numbers were also significantly impacted vs. the Pistons.

lmao talk about a strawman

anyone who has played a lick of organized basketball knows that is a basic fundamental taught to players on how to deal with handchecking.

So at first you are saying players can put others at a disadvantage when they were handchecked, and now it is about how to deal with?

Any organized ball would teach you how to deal with double teams too, I am sure double teams have no impact no the offensive player.

fair enough. i obviously cant change your mind, nor can you change mine. i just wanted you to see that you posted a lot of lies and made up stuff.

You have issues, really, major issues.

neat.

Because that is true?

point is, quit posting lies and making stuff up. if you just personally dont care for a different style of basketball, so be it. if you personally think that handchecking is the biggest reason for perimeter scoring to increase, so be it. just dont make up lies to back up your argument.

When did I say I don't care for a different style? And what lies? I have backed up my points.

im done with this. post whatever replies you want, its going nowhere anyways, and ive said what i wanted to say. i really dont care to argue anymore with someone who is so incredibly insecure that he resorts to lying and making things up just to back up a personal opinion.

I would say insecure people would just lob personal insults all day and make mountains out of molehills.

Did you use to write for Seinfeld?

[Dirks_Finale]

Was Ron Harper a D-bag? First I have heard of this.

Jason Caffey: Ron Harper? I hate that guy, he was so insecure

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ed-nba-history

[FrostKing]

^translation...all the les, money and fame in the world can't mask your insecurities. It's like the stories about him bullying teammates. Bullies bully people because shaming someone allows them to stay at a place where they can't be opposed...because being opposed would expose the false confidence they cloak themselves with.

Hahah

This is male sports. At the highest level. Beyond $$$, the biggest driving factor for these guys is to not be emasculated


Bulls bench - Longley, Kerr and Buechler

Stiff white guys, right? Plumbers and grocery baggers. Instead of running them off the team, Jordan invested his time into molding them into winners. It took hard parenting. And these players responded in key moments late in series when MJ/Pippen were out of gas.

Lebron usually had superior benches. But without a father figure to teach him how to lead, he was left spending his time creating cool handshakes. And that is those he didn't run off or abandon for greener pastures

[FrostKing]

.

[FrostKing]

Was Ron Harper a D-bag? First I have heard of this.

Jason Caffey: Ron Harper? I hate that guy, he was so insecure

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ed-nba-history

Harper was definitely the most urban on the team

[Dirks_Finale]

Lebron usually had superior benches. But without a father figure to teach him how to lead, he was left spending his time creating cool handshakes.

I don't think it's a coincidence he picks DWade, a final's MVP, to team up with and attempt to win his first. Notice he didn't even give Chicago and D-rose a serious look in FA as they were not proven winners.

I'm trying to picture Jordan bailing on the Bulls after losing to the Pistons again in 89-90....subsequently teaming up with the Pistons or Celtics to learn how to win and be mentored by a winner. I just can't wrap my brain around that because he was such an alpha-male.

[Spurtacular]

Ron Harper

Funny how Dad Killer needed all-stars Harper, Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc and all-time 3 shooter Kerr while past prime GOAT PG Stockton was leading his team past all of them if not for Karl Malone's choking.

[Dirks_Finale]

Funny how Dad Killer needed all-stars Harper, Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc and all-time 3 shooter Kerr while past prime GOAT PG Stockton was leading his team past all of them if not for Karl Malone's choking.

Harper was a s of his former self by the tine he joined Chicago. And Rodman was becoming a washout in 98. He wasn't even starting in the 98 playoffs.

But yeah, Chicago was better than Utah both those Final years. Krause deserves props for assembling an excellent roster.

[Spurtacular]

Harper was a s of his former self by the tine he joined Chicago.

Standard Jordan fanboy myth narrative.

Ron Harper averaged 19 ppg the season before ring chasing in Chicago.

[Spurtacular]

And Rodman was becoming a washout in 98.