NBA 2021-2022

[RobinLFC]

But you realize that it's not based on logic or context. For example here you are assuming that the an actually good coach like Finch and an actually good GM like Tim Connelly are bound to mess up because they are now with the Wolves who have new owners, so it's not as if Glenn Taylor could be the difference maker.

It makes your opinion hollow and frankly uninteresting, especially when you don't make the same point about the Grizzlies who haven't successful or particularly competitive.

I am talking to you, you’re a Wolves fan. I’m not talking about the Kings either so not sure why you are taking other unsuccesful franchises into the conversation.

Call my opinion anything you want mate. I’ll be on record that you won’t see them compete for a ring for the next five years, happy to be proven wrong. Same goes for the Vikings. And no, it’s not based on logic, but it’s gonna be true.

 

[R'hllor]

He did a bit more than that, calling him a fecking bum.

Ja Morant had to tweet about it, just could not let it go.

You love to see it, they flapping their gums with nothing behind to back it up, good for Klay. Also, some players are really weird

 

[JPRouve]

I am talking to you, you’re a Wolves fan. I’m not talking about the Kings either so not sure why you are taking other unsuccesful franchises into the conversation.

Call my opinion anything you want mate. I’ll be on record that you won’t see them compete for a ring for the next five years, happy to be proven wrong. Same goes for the Vikings. And no, it’s not based on logic, but it’s gonna be true.

And no one told you that they will definitely compete for a ring in the next five years. That's the strange thing about your point, no one made that claim, no one supported it. The point was about a rivalry between two teams which you turned into the Wolves are shit and will mess things up.

And the vast majority of teams won't compete for a ring, so you may as well make that point for almost everyone.

 

[Moby]

Anyone knows what he's on about? What happened on July 4, 2016?

 

[charlton66]

I have it as:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem/Lebron
3. Lebron/Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Wilt
10. Olajuwan
11. Curry/Kobe
12. Kobe/Curry

I don't think either Curry or Kobe displace any of the top ten yet, but in my opinion, Steph is right at the doorstep. There's already an argument for him being at the bottom of the top 10 - even though I personally don't think it's a strong one yet - and another title or MVP puts him comfortably in there.

The Curry Vs Kobe debate is always going to rage on, and those who advocate for Kobe will cite his defense as a factor.

The statistical edge goes to Curry, but the argument in Kobe's favor is that he played a good portion of his career before hand checking was removed (and played all but the very last season before the new freedom of movement interpretation came into effect). I still don't buy into it as much as some do. We have seen Kobe's contemporaries (LeBron, Wade, McGrady) have better statistical outputs in the same time that he played.

A quick comparison:

Accolades:

Titles: Curry 4 vs Kobe 5
FMVPs: Curry 1 vs Kobe 2
MVPs: Curry 2 vs Kobe 2
Scoring titles: Curry 2 vs Kobe 2



Regular season per 36 mins:

PPG: Curry 25.5 vs Kobe 24.9
RPG: Curry 4.9 vs Kobe 5.2
APG: Curry 6.8 vs Kobe 4.7
FG%: Curry 47.3% vs Kobe 44.7%
TS%: Curry 62.4% vs Kobe 55.0%

---
Regular season Advanced Stats:

PER (Career): Curry 23.8 vs Kobe 22.9
PER (Peak):. Curry 31.5 vs Kobe 28.0
Winshares/48: Curry .203 vs Kobe .170
Winshares/48(peak): Curry .318 vs Kobe .224
BPM (Career): Curry 6.5 vs Kobe 4.6
BPM (Peak):. Curry 11.9 vs Kobe 7.6
Offensive rtg (career)Curry 118 vs Kobe 110
Defensive rtg(Career)Curry 107 vs Kobe 105
Offensive rtg (peak): Curry 125 vs Kobe 115
Defensive rtg(peak): Curry 101 vs Kobe 98

-------

Playoffs per 36 mins:

PPG: Curry 25.7 vs Kobe 23.5
RPG: Curry 5.2 vs Kobe 4.7
APG: Curry 6.0 vs Kobe 4.3
FG%: Curry 45.2% vs Kobe 44.8%
TS%: Curry 60.8% vs Kobe 54.1%
---
Playoffs Advanced Stats:

PER (Career): Curry 23.2 vs Kobe 22.4
PER (Peak):. Curry 27.1 vs Kobe 26.8
Winshares/48: Curry .195 vs Kobe .157
Winshares/48(peak): Curry .272 vs Kobe .260
BPM (Career): Curry 7.1 vs Kobe 5.1
BPM (Peak):. Curry 9.7 vs Kobe 9.1
Offensive rtg (career)Curry 117 vs Kobe 110
Defensive rtg(Career)Curry 108 vs Kobe 106
Offensive rtg (peak): Curry 125 vs Kobe 117
Defensive rtg(peak): Curry 102 vs Kobe 99



Statistically, it isn't really all that competitive. Curry outperforms Kobe in almost every advanced non-cumulative metric. You could argue that Curry benefits from the relatively friendly defensive rules, and that 2 of Curry's 4 titles don't carry as much weight as Kobe's first 3 rings with Shaw since the early 2000s Lakers wasn't quite as dominant or as stacked as the 2017-2019 Warriors were.

If he gets another title, I don't see how Curry doesn't supplant Kobe on the all time list, assuming he hasn't already. Moreover, if Curry does so while winning another FMVP, he'll have a good argument for a top 6 or 7 spot.

Even though I did my top 10 alphabetically, when I thought about it I have Curry 9th. I left Wilt out because although he was one of the most dominant players ever, from everything you read he was a terrible team mate and and a bit of an ass. Hakeem was on the outside for me because although he was an all time great, in the same way that KD joining the Dubs or Kyrie and Kevin Love being out in 2015 gets held against Steph and the Warriors, Hakeem's greatest years ('94 and '95) were both when Jordan was out playing baseball. Probably not fair for either Hakeem or Steph but when you get to such rarefied air as top 10 all time these things matter. Steph (for me) has just validated his legacy with this year's win and removed any so called asterisks and so I moved him ahead of Hakeem as well.

I have Kobe 10th.

 

[RORY65]

Anyone knows what he's on about? What happened on July 4, 2016?

He signed for the Warriors. It's a bummer that he went there because it made the league lop-sided and meant we didn't get to see Steph Curry be the obvious main guy for several years but also because it doesn't seem like Durant's relationship with the Warriors is that great these days and he didn't get all that he was looking for from that move (minus the championships of course).

 

[Beans]

Since top 10 all time seems to be trending throughout the media today, just as a matter of interest how would you folks rank your top 10 all time?

Gonna be impossible, who can give a fair assessment of the old players?

Anyone even know the name Sam Jones? 10 titles? Anyone even think about putting him in the top 10? Its gonna be Kobe on the lists instead, likely missing Jerry West and no sign of George Mikan.

"Mikan was certainly one of the most dominant. Counting his season with the Gears and a championship won with the Lakers in the old NBL, Mikan captured titles seven times in eight pro seasons. He was the league’s scoring champion six years in a row, topping out with an average of 28.4 points a game."

Who else has done that?

 

[charlton66]

Gonna be impossible, who can give a fair assessment of the old players?

Anyone even know the name Sam Jones? 10 titles? Anyone even think about putting him in the top 10? Its gonna be Kobe on the lists instead, likely missing Jerry West and no sign of George Mikan.

"Mikan was certainly one of the most dominant. Counting his season with the Gears and a championship won with the Lakers in the old NBL, Mikan captured titles seven times in eight pro seasons. He was the league’s scoring champion six years in a row, topping out with an average of 28.4 points a game."

Who else has done that?

Unless you are 95 or more you are not going to have had the opportunity to have seen every eligible player and be able to make an informed value judgment about them. What it seems people do is that they use lists generated by people who did see these older players to help them.

As an example the general consensus on a list might be that player A is better than player B. You might not have seen player B but when player C comes along and the consensus is that player C is better than player A, then by default he's also better than player B.

I think that's how these lists have been compiled over the years and it appears that the only players who have a shot at the top 10 from the pre- merger era would be Russell, Chamberlain, and possibly Oscar.

It's not a perfect way of doing things but if you are going to make an all time list it's probably the best you can do.

 

[Beans]

Unless you are 95 or more you are not going to have had the opportunity to have seen every eligible player and be able to make an informed value judgment about them. What it seems people do is that they use lists generated by people who did see these older players to help them.

As an example the general consensus on a list might be that player A is better than player B. You might not have seen player B but when player C comes along and the consensus is that player C is better than player A, then by default he's also better than player B.

I think that's how these lists have been compiled over the years and it appears that the only players who have a shot at the top 10 from the pre- merger era would be Russell, Chamberlain, and possibly Oscar.

It's not a perfect way of doing things but if you are going to make an all time list it's probably the best you can do.

Totally forgot about Oscar Robertson, absolutely as good as anyone who ever played.

I think these lists are better when people stick to players they've watched, or even by era.

People forget Carmelo Anthony was a king of the league before Kobe and Harden turned the league into an endless attempt to draw fouls by putting your arms into the defenders arms, and the top scorer in the league was closer so 20 ppg than 30. Might be more useful to compare the Carmelo prime years to the Jordan era than the current one.

There's certainly more skill in the league than ever, so if you're the top layer now you're facing a top quality opponent opposite your position pretty much every game. Mikan likely didn't face the defenses Shaq did.

 

[altodevil]

Carmelo is the only player I've watched that has been both incredibly overrated and incredibly underrated at different stages of his career.

 

[RobinLFC]

And no one told you that they will definitely compete for a ring in the next five years. That's the strange thing about your point, no one made that claim, no one supported it. The point was about a rivalry between two teams which you turned into the Wolves are shit and will mess things up.

And the vast majority of teams won't compete for a ring, so you may as well make that point for almost everyone.

So how you gonna make a rivalry if you don’t wanna say they’re gonna compete for a ring? First round series don’t create rivalries.

 

[elmo]

Totally forgot about Oscar Robertson, absolutely as good as anyone who ever played.

I think these lists are better when people stick to players they've watched, or even by era.

People forget Carmelo Anthony was a king of the league before Kobe and Harden turned the league into an endless attempt to draw fouls by putting your arms into the defenders arms, and the top scorer in the league was closer so 20 ppg than 30. Might be more useful to compare the Carmelo prime years to the Jordan era than the current one.

There's certainly more skill in the league than ever, so if you're the top layer now you're facing a top quality opponent opposite your position pretty much every game. Mikan likely didn't face the defenses Shaq did.

In what world do we live in where Melo is king of the league?!

You do realise Kobe was in the league before Melo right?

The lowest scoring champion since Melo came into the league was KD who averaged 27.7

And the last time the NBA scoring champ averaged closer to 20 than 30 was in the 1950s.

 

[JPRouve]

So how you gonna make a rivalry if you don’t wanna say they’re gonna compete for a ring? First round series don’t create rivalries.

Which is where the caveat I started the sentence with comes into play. Otherwise I don't see any rivalry.

 

[Charlie Foley]

 

[Beans]

In what world do we live in where Melo is king of the league?!

You do realise Kobe was in the league before Melo right?

The lowest scoring champion since Melo came into the league was KD who averaged 27.7

And the last time the NBA scoring champ averaged closer to 20 than 30 was in the 1950s.

I said a king, not the king

I guess my memory is crap, I should have looked the scoring charts up first. Scoring was significantly lower, anyway, they intentionally altered the game to make it higher scoring. It was harder to score 25/g in the days of Carmelo hanging out among the top scorers.

The players who exceled in that era are generally overlooked, like Duncan and Carmelo.

 

[charlton66]

I said a king, not the king

I guess my memory is crap, I should have looked the scoring charts up first. Scoring was significantly lower, anyway, they intentionally altered the game to make it higher scoring. It was harder to score 25/g in the days of Carmelo hanging out among the top scorers.

The players who exceled in that era are generally overlooked, like Duncan and Carmelo.

I'm not sure the NBA intentionally altered the game to increase scoring. Stephen Curry showed up and players started hitting 3s instead of 2s.

 

[Beans]

I'm not sure the NBA intentionally altered the game to increase scoring. Stephen Curry showed up and players started hitting 3s instead of 2s.

That's what I've read.

"Strategically Driven Rule Changes in NBA: Causes and Consequences"

https://thesportjournal.org/article...-rule-changes-in-nba-causes-and-consequences/

"Freedom of movement a big factor in NBA scoring spike"

https://www.azcentral.com/story/spo...reedom-movement-nba-scoring-spike/1860368002/

 

[JPRouve]

I'm not sure the NBA intentionally altered the game to increase scoring. Stephen Curry showed up and players started hitting 3s instead of 2s.

It's largely due to pace but one has to wonder. The average pace decreased between 1995 and 2005, interestingly people don't consider that this period is the anomaly when statistically it is, the pace decreased and slowly went back to pre-95 numbers.

 

[charlton66]

It's largely due to pace but one has to wonder. The average pace decreased between 1995 and 2005, interestingly people don't consider that this period is the anomaly when statistically it is, the pace decreased and slowly went back to pre-95 numbers.

Pace was definitely an important factor, but the Curry factor is also pretty big. Prior to Steph, players didn't take as many 3s because it was thought that they couldn't make them at a high enough percentage to incentivize the 3 vs the 2. Once Steph came along and not only made them at a high percentage but at a significant volume other players/teams began to notice and started to replicate what he started. The league has never looked back.

 

[Beans]

Pace was definitely an important factor, but the Curry factor is also pretty big. Prior to Steph, players didn't take as many 3s because it was thought that they couldn't make them at a high enough percentage to incentivize the 3 vs the 2. Once Steph came along and not only made them at a high percentage but at a significant volume other players/teams began to notice and started to replicate what he started. The league has never looked back.

Taking an early 3 was a betrayal of the basics of basketball, ask Phil Jackson and he'll tell you the essence of basketball is passing. Taking a 3 without feeding the post was like giving up. And taking a lot of 3s was just not done, and while Nash had success trying to change that, he didn't succeed in the playoffs, and I think this slowed the transition.

It does seem shooting is better than it used to be, the number of people who can hit leaner 3s is kind of mind blowing, even if it's still not a shot coaches love.

 

[adexkola]

Ja is a weird one, bit of a Steph fanboy and called him top-5 all time but also gets into fights with everyone on the Warriors and Wolves and randos on Twitter…. Oh wait

I mean, it is also weird to be thinking about something someone said in the regular season, on twitter, after you've won a title, despite playing worse than Wiggins...

But it's silly, sports, at the end of the day, so meh

 

[adexkola]

@Ladron de redcafe I'm almost sure Kobe has only 1 MVP

 

[elmo]

I said a king, not the king

I guess my memory is crap, I should have looked the scoring charts up first. Scoring was significantly lower, anyway, they intentionally altered the game to make it higher scoring. It was harder to score 25/g in the days of Carmelo hanging out among the top scorers.

The players who exceled in that era are generally overlooked, like Duncan and Carmelo.

Are you sure you're thinking of Melo? He played his entire career when they changed the hand-checking rules to make it easier to score and that was the biggest change in the league's offense till Steph came around.

And like I mentioned, the lowest top scorer in the league since Melo came into the league was Durant with 27.7, so saying it was harder to average 25ppg during Melo's era is bullocks.

Tim Duncan's prime was before Melo became a star in the league so they're not in the same era.

 

[elmo]

I'm not sure the NBA intentionally altered the game to increase scoring. Stephen Curry showed up and players started hitting 3s instead of 2s.

I think they changed the hand checking rules in 04/05 which made it easier for offenses to score as well.

 

[JPRouve]

Pace was definitely an important factor, but the Curry factor is also pretty big. Prior to Steph, players didn't take as many 3s because it was thought that they couldn't make them at a high enough percentage to incentivize the 3 vs the 2. Once Steph came along and not only made them at a high percentage but at a significant volume other players/teams began to notice and started to replicate what he started. The league has never looked back.

That would be the case if the current pace and scoring was unseen pre 95 but it's not. Total scoring is linked to pace, you can look at basketball reference and you will see it, similar pace ranges put teams in similar scoring ranges. And the 1995-2005 happens to be a low pace era.

 

[charlton66]

That would be the case if the current pace and scoring was unseen pre 95 but it's not. Total scoring is linked to pace, you can look at basketball reference and you will see it, similar pace ranges put teams in similar scoring ranges. And the 1995-2005 happens to be a low pace era.

No, I definitely agree. It's pretty self evident when you think about it. The higher the pace, the more shots you're going to put up the more points you're going to score. What is not being considered though is how much defenses have improved in recent times. They are way more sophisticated than in days gone by, yet the scoring numbers are still high. The 3 vs the 2 is a big reason for that and Curry is the poster child for the 3.

 

[JPRouve]

No, I definitely agree. It's pretty self evident when you think about it. The higher the pace, the more shots you're going to put up the more points you're going to score. What is not being considered though is how much defenses have improved in recent times. They are way more sophisticated than in days gone by, yet the scoring numbers are still high. The 3 vs the 2 is a big reason for that and Curry is the poster child for the 3.

The problem is that paint and post defense hasn't improved. And it was the bread and butter of pre 90s basketball. There isn't much to support any superiority when it comes to defense, the NBA was different and played differently but with the same results at the exception of the 95-05 period which to me is interesting and I don't really know why that period is different. Why the pace went down that drastically?

Think about it this way, since pre 90s basketball was played at a similar pace than today and teams would score roughly the same amount of points, today's teams aren't more efficient nor have a rhythm advantage at similar pace. The interesting part stylistically is that pre 90s team would not be able to defend the perimeter the way current teams do because players are smaller and faster but the down side is that current teams couldn't defend the paint and post due to having smaller and in many case weaker players. It would be very interesting to see who would actually win if you put the best team of the 80s against the best team of the late 2010s but the answer isn't as obvious as it is sometimes portrayed, it depends on who makes his shots more than anything.

 

[elmo]

The problem is that paint and post defense hasn't improved. And it was the bread and butter of pre 90s basketball. There isn't much to support any superiority when it comes to defense, the NBA was different and played differently but with the same results at the exception of the 95-05 period which to me is interesting and I don't really know why that period is different. Why the pace went down that drastically?

Think about it this way, since pre 90s basketball was played at a similar pace than today and teams would score roughly the same amount of points, today's teams aren't more efficient nor have a rhythm advantage at similar pace. The interesting part stylistically is that pre 90s team would not be able to defend the perimeter the way current teams do because players are smaller and faster but the down side is that current teams couldn't defend the paint and post due to having smaller and in many case weaker players. It would be very interesting to see who would actually win if you put the best team of the 80s against the best team of the late 2010s but the answer isn't as obvious as it is sometimes portrayed, it depends on who makes his shots more than anything.

The backcourt in the era were filled with players who were iso ball and obsessed with trying to score in the paint over the larger guy.

 

[JPRouve]

The backcourt in the era were filled with players who were iso ball and obsessed with trying to score in the paint over the larger guy.

You are likely onto something because superficially it seems that it's based on a particular generation of players. I wonder what created that focus on iso and presumably half court offense with less fast transition.

 

[charlton66]

The problem is that paint and post defense hasn't improved. And it was the bread and butter of pre 90s basketball. There isn't much to support any superiority when it comes to defense, the NBA was different and played differently but with the same results at the exception of the 95-05 period which to me is interesting and I don't really know why that period is different. Why the pace went down that drastically?

Think about it this way, since pre 90s basketball was played at a similar pace than today and teams would score roughly the same amount of points, today's teams aren't more efficient nor have a rhythm advantage at similar pace. The interesting part stylistically is that pre 90s team would not be able to defend the perimeter the way current teams do because players are smaller and faster but the down side is that current teams couldn't defend the paint and post due to having smaller and in many case weaker players. It would be very interesting to see who would actually win if you put the best team of the 80s against the best team of the late 2010s but the answer isn't as obvious as it is sometimes portrayed, it depends on who makes his shots more than anything.

I'm not sure I could say for sure whether paint and post defense has regressed in any way. You certainly don't see players posting up like they used to. The general consensus (and somewhat lazy argument) seems to be "well, the game has changed." While that is true, the question should be "why has the game changed?" Could it be that defenses have figured out how to defend players in the post? If that is not the case (and IMLTHO, I don't think it is) why don't they post up as much as they used to? My answer goes back to my previous argument - in the paint you still only get 2 points. Hence the 3 ball is king.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm not sure I could say for sure whether paint and post defense has regressed in any way. You certainly don't see players posting up like they used to. The general consensus (and somewhat lazy argument) seems to be "well, the game has changed." While that is true, the question should be "why has the game changed?" Could it be that defenses have figured out how to defend players in the post? If that is not the case, why don't they post up as much as they used to and my answer is that in the paint you still only get 2 points. Hence the 3 ball is still king.

I said that it hasn't improved not that it's better, I also wouldn't say that it has regressed because teams are able to defend the paint and post when they don't play small lineups. Regarding your last point when it comes 2s vs 3s, it's not exactly a paint vs 3s question but long mid range shots vs 3s. The shooting charts encouraged by teams is 3s or paints points whether they come from post ups, pick and roll, layups or drives.

It's a shame that basketball reference doesn't have the shooting stats for older seasons since it starts in 1996 which is already in the slower pace era. But we can still look at the differences, the 0-3 feet range has been reduced from 34% in 96 to 24% in 22, the 3-10 feet range increased from 14% in 96 to 19% in 22, the 10-16 range was at 14.2% in 96 and 9.4 in 22, the 16-3P range at 14.9 and at 7.1% in 22.

Now keep in mind that from an analytics standpoint the 0-3 range, top of the three point line and corner threes are the best shots. So the increase in 3-10 makes no sense unless you consider the idea that smaller players are not as good at posting up and these are largely failed post ups/drive attempts(I'm only guessing). An other interesting stat, the average height is decreasing and has been decreasing for a while, we are currently at a lower average than the early 80s.

And to be clear, my point is that the game had changed in pretty big ways but when it comes to scoring which era is better is difficult to tell in particular if you ignore the 95-05 which seems to be the worst when you combine shooting philosophies and pace. I would guess that the 95-05 would be outscored by their predecessors and successors but it's also the taller era which probably needs to be accounted for.

 

[elmo]

You are likely onto something because superficially it seems that it's based on a particular generation of players. I wonder what created that focus on iso and presumably half court offense with less fast transition.

Watching MJ highlights and wanting to be the next MJ.

 

[elmo]

I said that it hasn't improved not that it's better, I also wouldn't say that it has regressed because teams are able to defend the paint and post when they don't play small lineups. Regarding your last point when it comes 2s vs 3s, it's not exactly a paint vs 3s question but long mid range shots vs 3s. The shooting charts encouraged by teams is 3s or paints points whether they come from post ups, pick and roll, layups or drives.

It's a shame that basketball reference doesn't have the shooting stats for older seasons since it starts in 1996 which is already in the slower pace era. But we can still look at the differences, the 0-3 feet range has been reduced from 34% in 96 to 24% in 22, the 3-10 feet range increased from 14% in 96 to 19% in 22, the 10-16 range was at 14.2% in 96 and 9.4 in 22, the 16-3P range at 14.9 and at 7.1% in 22.

Now keep in mind that from an analytics standpoint the 0-3 range, top of the three point line and corner threes are the best shots. So the increase in 3-10 makes no sense unless you consider the idea that smaller players are not as good at posting up and these are largely failed post ups/drive attempts(I'm only guessing). An other interesting stat, the average height is decreasing and has been decreasing for a while, we are currently at a lower average than the early 80s.

And to be clear, my point is that the game had changed in pretty big ways but when it comes to scoring which era is better is difficult to tell in particular if you ignore the 95-05 which seems to be the worst when you combine shooting philosophies and pace. I would guess that the 95-05 would be outscored by their predecessors and successors but it's also the taller era which probably needs to be accounted for.

Or that's just where most bigs get their shots off nowadays because they try to avoid contact.

 

[JPRouve]

Or that's just where most bigs get their shots off nowadays because they try to avoid contact.

I would say and instead of or. But that's a valid point.

 

[Kevin]

Jaren jackson jr.'s wiki page says, "position: bum"

 

[charlton66]

Nick Wright can be an ass and his takes are without doubt the most LeBron centric of any pundit on TV (even more so than Shannon Sharpe). With all that being said he and Chris Broussard are the most amusing sports duo on TV. The way they go back and forth with each other is comedy gold (Broussard, of course, invariably being right).

 

[WeePat]

Shoutout to all the UK Nets fans that started popping up all over the place when KD and Kyrie went there. They thought they could sneak in and hitch a ride to a dynasty without the grind

 

[Beans]

I'm not sure I could say for sure whether paint and post defense has regressed in any way. You certainly don't see players posting up like they used to. The general consensus (and somewhat lazy argument) seems to be "well, the game has changed." While that is true, the question should be "why has the game changed?" Could it be that defenses have figured out how to defend players in the post? If that is not the case (and IMLTHO, I don't think it is) why don't they post up as much as they used to? My answer goes back to my previous argument - in the paint you still only get 2 points. Hence the 3 ball is king.

There's the 5 seconds closely guarded rule now, called the Mark Jackson rule, you can no longer grind in the post, it greatly changed the game.

 

[entropy]

 

[Sarni]

What a sad story. He was drafted just 4 years ago too.