"I Could Score 100."

[SaltyBlackWorm]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

[QUOTE=Cebby;2041757354]1. Jordan wasn't triple teamed. That's absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5auPSMaD3vE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd2Wqt21_Yo&feature=watch_response

lol

[Dice]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

[QUOTE=SaltyBlackWorm;2041765007]

1. Jordan wasn't triple teamed. That's absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5auPSMaD3vE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd2Wqt21_Yo&feature=watch_response

lol

I was waiting for someone to post these. Not only was he triple-teamed with the ball BUT without it as well.

I can still remember when Jim Durham was the Bulls play-by-play announcer, one of his favorite lines when multiple players started to swarm Jordan with the ball, "Jordan with the ball, they send the posse after him"

[Bornindamecca]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

One of the big flaws in this discussion is that this is era vs. era. It isn't. The New Jersey Nets or LA Clippers of the 80s/90s didn't play defense that would work today, and modern day Boston/LA/Cleveland don't play defense that would have been shredded back in the day.

Great defensive teams back then would play great defense now, and the same goes for modern teams and back then. Same also goes for terrible defensive teams. I shudder to think what Kobe Bryant would do to Dan Majerle, Calbert Chaney, Andrew Toney.

People have to remember that Michael was the first big guard with his specific skill set at the SG position. Shoot, dribble, drive, post, defend, rebound, full court, half court and high flying finishes. Defenses were figuring out how to defend him on the fly. Jordan inspired the succeeding generation of bigger players to be more agile, hence Kobe, Vince, Tmac and Paul Pierce. By the time Kobe reached 25 or so, Larry Brown and his acolytes and Greg Poppovich and his acolytes and Riley and his acolytes had devised defenses specifically to stop that skillset. Then these guys all went on to different teams after being assistants to those to guys, and on the good teams, these defenses spread around the league. They didn't get to every team, so you don't see it every night, but in the playoffs it really comes through.

Schemes and rotations are much better orchestrated on the great defensive teams of the modern era, specifically when discussing highly skilled SGs. Now, they are having a similar problem with the SF position, as these 6'8/6'9 guys learn to dribble and shoot like what has become the standard for 6'6 players.

It's an oversimplification to point out a couple of rules and extrapolate a scoring average from it, i.e. "Kobe would only average 25ppg if they had a handchecking rule."

That's not a very sharp analysis, and doesn't take in the whole picture.

Specific to this discussion, with game pace and defensive personnel as a factor, MJ's best chance to score 100 would be against Golden State or the Knicks of last year.

[dragonyeuw]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

[quote=Dice;2041765096]

I was waiting for someone to post these. Not only was he triple-teamed with the ball BUT without it as well.

I can still remember when Jim Durham was the Bulls play-by-play announcer, one of his favorite lines when multiple players started to swarm Jordan with the ball, "Jordan with the ball, they send the posse after him"

Yep, that someone would actually say Jordan wasn't triple-teamed is hilarious.

[Moses Shuttlesworth]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

lol Paul Pierce scored 46 points in one half against the Nets in 2002. By some of the logic I'm hearing he should have scored 90+ points that game.

These "what ifs"

[RonnieG]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

I'm not sure the <1% shooting increased seen in the 5 years before and after the rule changes are as big as you're making them out.

Shooting percentages were already up. Players today are just better shooters than they were in the 80s and 90s because they grew up with the 3 point shot.

Thats not at all true. First of all the rule changes are huge. Theyre bigger than you realize. The % would be bigger if it wasnt leading to more 3pt attempts. What youre not realizing is that during the 90s with all the clutching and grabbing and handchecking on the perimeter, is what led to basketball becoming a 2 on 2 iso game. The new rules have opened up movement because its created space for people. The 2 on 2 iso game usually meant an interplay between a perimeter player and a post player, with the ball getting forced inside a lot. Its easier to shoot at every distance now but the numbers would be even bigger if they were taking the same kinds of shots as before. But another aspect that comes into play is a general lack of scoring centers in the NBA now. Why is that? It likely has partly to do with the rules pushing the further away from the basket with the creation of space.

Ball movement creates better shots and space creates better shots. The rule changes are huge in this regard. If you look at the NBA in the 2000s. Its not a coincidence that if Tim Duncan was probably the player of the decade for the first half but after that, around the time they made the rule changes, its Kobe.

[RonnieG]

Re: &quot;I Could Score 100.&quot;

One of the big flaws in this discussion is that this is era vs. era. It isn't. The New Jersey Nets or LA Clippers of the 80s/90s didn't play defense that would work today, and modern day Boston/LA/Cleveland don't play defense that would have been shredded back in the day.

Great defensive teams back then would play great defense now, and the same goes for modern teams and back then. Same also goes for terrible defensive teams. I shudder to think what Kobe Bryant would do to Dan Majerle, Calbert Chaney, Andrew Toney.

People have to remember that Michael was the first big guard with his specific skill set at the SG position. Shoot, dribble, drive, post, defend, rebound, full court, half court and high flying finishes. Defenses were figuring out how to defend him on the fly. Jordan inspired the succeeding generation of bigger players to be more agile, hence Kobe, Vince, Tmac and Paul Pierce. By the time Kobe reached 25 or so, Larry Brown and his acolytes and Greg Poppovich and his acolytes and Riley and his acolytes had devised defenses specifically to stop that skillset. Then these guys all went on to different teams after being assistants to those to guys, and on the good teams, these defenses spread around the league. They didn't get to every team, so you don't see it every night, but in the playoffs it really comes through.

Schemes and rotations are much better orchestrated on the great defensive teams of the modern era, specifically when discussing highly skilled SGs. Now, they are having a similar problem with the SF position, as these 6'8/6'9 guys learn to dribble and shoot like what has become the standard for 6'6 players.

It's an oversimplification to point out a couple of rules and extrapolate a scoring average from it, i.e. "Kobe would only average 25ppg if they had a handchecking rule."

That's not a very sharp analysis, and doesn't take in the whole picture.

Specific to this discussion, with game pace and defensive personnel as a factor, MJ's best chance to score 100 would be against Golden State or the Knicks of last year.

This isnt an evolution discussion.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: &quot;I Could Score 100.&quot;

Thats not at all true. First of all the rule changes are huge. Theyre bigger than you realize. The % would be bigger if it wasnt leading to more 3pt attempts. What youre not realizing is that during the 90s with all the clutching and grabbing and handchecking on the perimeter, is what led to basketball becoming a 2 on 2 iso game. The new rules have opened up movement because its created space for people. The 2 on 2 iso game usually meant an interplay between a perimeter player and a post player, with the ball getting forced inside a lot. Its easier to shoot at every distance now but the numbers would be even bigger if they were taking the same kinds of shots as before. But another aspect that comes into play is a general lack of scoring centers in the NBA now. Why is that? It likely has partly to do with the rules pushing the further away from the basket with the creation of space.

Both points are right. There are some better shooters in the league, and the rules have opened up. A lot of the Euro players that have come in are better shooters, the big men are MUCH better shooters overall and the shooting guards are much more skilled at shooting off of the dribble. Back in the day, there were a lot of great set shooters, good PG shooters(which we don't have a lot of) but the system had things shut down in the 90s. In the 90s, it was both bad shooters and a slowed down pace that kept percentages down, but this also had a lot to do with the talented big men in the league.

No one is slowing things down to a halfcourt pace to allow Javale McGee to go to work in the paint Quality bigs means a slower pace, because you have to be in the half court to work out of the post. The one exception is probably Amar'e, who is so fast, athletic and agile that he is just as good in the fullcourt as he is in the halfcourt.

This isnt an evolution discussion.

Of course it is. If you're going to discuss what Jordan could do in the league today, you have to be aware of the way the league has evolved since he was in his prime. The biggest changes are: expansion, skilled players with more size, better defensive schemes, rule changes and a faster pace if you're looking at the 90s, and a return to team play since the 90s.

[RonnieG]

Re: &quot;I Could Score 100.&quot;

[quote=Bornindamecca;2041765893]

Both points are right. There are some better shooters in the league, and the rules have opened up. A lot of the Euro players that have come in are better shooters, the big men are MUCH better shooters overall and the shooting guards are much more skilled at shooting off of the dribble. Back in the day, there were a lot of great set shooters, good PG shooters(which we don't have a lot of) but the system had things shut down in the 90s. In the 90s, it was both bad shooters and a slowed down pace that kept percentages down, but this also had a lot to do with the talented big men in the league.

No one is slowing things down to a halfcourt pace to allow Javale McGee to go to work in the paint Quality bigs means a slower pace, because you have to be in the half court to work out of the post. The one exception is probably Amar'e, who is so fast, athletic and agile that he is just as good in the fullcourt as he is in the halfcourt.

There were actually good shooters during this era and before. But the game was just not as open to that. You could get open shots then but it often meant running your 3 pt shooter through a gauntlet of screens. With the space and ball movement todays players are given, thats not as necessary.

Of course it is. If you're going to discuss what Jordan could do in the league today, you have to be aware of the way the league has evolved since he was in his prime. The biggest changes are: expansion, skilled players with more size, better defensive schemes, rule changes and a faster pace if you're looking at the 90s, and a return to team play since the 90s.

Not where Jordan is concerned. For it to be an evolution discussion, the players subsequent to Jordan would have to be better. Good luck selling that idea.

Edit-- And the other thing. People are often not aware how that style of play in the 90s came about. It actually started on night when Jordan scored 59 on the Pistons. Jordan used to use the Pistons all the time. Daley realized that whatever they were doing just isnt going to work. And so what he did was concoct this all hands on deck approach to defending one player with the added component of brutish violence. This style of play required the referees to allow it. The Pistons increased contact in both severity and frequency. And by increasing the frequency of fouls, they put the referees in the position of deciding to call a foul the same way they had previously but stop the game every 8 seconds and kill the flow. Or they could only call the most severe fouls to maintain flow. They chose the latter. In essence, they changed what a foul was. The net result of which was the Pistons won two titles. It took the league a couple of years to adjust to this. But what happened was that since the league was allowing the Pistons to play this way, other teams started to ratchet up the contact. It was necessary since thats what was being allowed. But it all started out of Chuck Dalys frustration with Jordan.

Thats evolution.

Fast forward 15 years and you have a league with a massive inflow of 18 year olds or one and dones, to go along with an influx of a lot of euros, which are typically softer, and suddenly 69-74 games are making the league a lot less exciting. When Jordan was in the league, people cared regardless. But once he was no longer with the Bulls, suddenly style of play mattered more and the league recognized the necessity to make it more possible for perimeter players to score points.

The rules changes are huge both when they allowed the Pistons to resort to this style of play, since it won them 2 world titles, and also with the new rule changes trying to dial down the defensive freedom that existed during the 90s. People keep talking about FG%s but thats been debunked several times over. What hasnt been debunked is what it means when you reduce the frequency and severity of physical contact. And if you dont believe me, just ask the NBA. Theyll tell you by their own actions. When Jordan was playing, the league admitted he was too good so they gave the defense a lot more freedom. After Jordan, the league recognized the need to give perimeter players more space.

Sorry, but where Jordan is concerned, thats de-evolution.