Jump to content

Which Type of NBA do you prefer?


Tetsujin

Which type of NBA do you prefer?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which type of NBA do you prefer?

    • Today's (more scoring, more 3 point shooting, wing-focused)
      12
    • 90's (more defensive-oriented, post oriented, the great center play)
      8


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, rickyt31 said:

The big difference is that the big men will be developed to play outside of the paint.

I think the NBA's Run n' Gun style will eliminate true big men. If you watch any high school or college game, almost every big man is a stretch 4/5.

Do any NBA teams run their offense through a post-up player? Maybe Utah with Jokic? idk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

I think the NBA's Run n' Gun style will eliminate true big men. If you watch any high school or college game, almost every big man is a stretch 4/5.

Do any NBA teams run their offense through a post-up player? Maybe Utah with Jokic? idk...

We still have centers like Gobert, Whiteside, Drummond, and others. Cousins was pretty much in that group when he was healthy. I think 7'0 centers are just going to more athletic to defend pick n rolls. Their offensive style won't have to change. We're going to see more David Robinson body types instead of Ewings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rickyt31 said:

We still have centers like Gobert, Whiteside, Drummond, and others. Cousins was pretty much in that group when he was healthy. I think 7'0 centers are just going to more athletic to defend pick n rolls. Their offensive style won't have to change. We're going to see more David Robinson body types instead of Ewings. 

Yeah but none of the guys you listed have the offense ran through them outside of Cousins when he was healthy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Disagree. When I think of offensive efficiency, I think of the Spurs running through Duncan. 

Um, why? Their offensive ratings in their first 4 championships were: 104.0, 105.6, 107.5, and 109.2. Not only are those bad numbers now, they only finished top 5 in offensive rating 1x. That 109.2 number? Would have been 20th this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Um, why? Their offensive ratings in their first 4 championships were: 104.0, 105.6, 107.5, and 109.2. Not only are those bad numbers now, they only finished top 5 in offensive rating 1x. That 109.2 number? Would have been 20th this season.

Scoring points doesn’t mean you’re being the most efficient. I’m willing to bet their field goal percentage was extremely high comparatively. They always got good shots within the rhythm of their offense. 
 

Golden State and these other high powered offenses work because they have the superest of superteams. They aren’t getting as consistently as good of looks as those Spurs players got IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Scoring points doesn’t mean you’re being the most efficient. I’m willing to bet their field goal percentage was extremely high comparatively. They always got good shots within the rhythm of their offense. 

What? What's the point of an offense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, seminoles1 said:

What? What's the point of an offense?

To be efficient. To score the most points per possession. 
 

If a team runs down and jacks up shots 6 seconds into the shot clock and scores 116 points on 38% shooting, it’s not as efficient as a team that takes their time and scores 105 points on 48% shooting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BleedTheClock said:

To be efficient. To score the most points per possession. 
 

If a team runs down and jacks up shots 6 seconds into the shot clock and scores 116 points on 38% shooting, it’s not as efficient as a team that takes their time and scores 105 points on 48% shooting. 

You know what offensive rating measures, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spurs offense improved as they stopped running it through Duncan and started relying more heavily on Manu/TP. Perimeter offense is more valuable and efficient than low post offense. That's just how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

To be efficient. To score the most points per possession. 
 

If a team runs down and jacks up shots 6 seconds into the shot clock and scores 116 points on 38% shooting, it’s not as efficient as a team that takes their time and scores 105 points on 48% shooting. 

You're also just wrong about the percentages. The Spurs' TS%s for those same 4 years: 52.3, 54.1, 53.4, and 56.1. They got more efficient the farther away from the post they played.

That 56.1%?  Also good for 20th this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

Scoring points doesn’t mean you’re being the most efficient. I’m willing to bet their field goal percentage was extremely high comparatively. They always got good shots within the rhythm of their offense. 
 

Golden State and these other high powered offenses work because they have the superest of superteams. They aren’t getting as consistently as good of looks as those Spurs players got IMO. 

Not true. GS are arguably the greatest team ever at getting good looks. They have great cutters and high IQ guys who know how to get easy buckets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...