No Hand checking is changing the game.

Is scoring up league wide? I'm pretty sure it is and it's more exciting to watch. Lord knows we know something about boring, low scoring games in Houston.

Does anyone else find it depressing when they do the Brake Check fast break points charity donation and we end up donating next to nothing?

 

have we had a zero dollar game yet? now that would be pathetic.


as far as handchecking, right now it's actually kind of slowing the game down due to all the free throws but the trend of getting defenses to back off on it and the trend of making it unacceptable is a good thing. people like to blame the players for being so bad on offense these days without taking into account the general focus on offense and all the advantages defense has been given like handchecking and wrestling in the post. if they stick with it, the no handchecking/bumping on the perimeter will definitely be a good thing.

 

I've wondered this too, last night I remember Lue had a fastbreak layup and then right after that there was a timeout. Well when they came back they should the fast break points, can you guess how many? Yup, 2!!! Thank god for Lue! I'm pretty sure either the game before, or the one before that, had 0 for fast break points. I remember thinking to myself how pathetic that was and how Brake Check was getting of so easy getting the advertising at such a minimal cost. If it was the Suns they were promoting for they'd be bankrupt by now!

Pugs

 

DD, I agree. I dont know if the league scoring is up but it sure SEEMS that way. Seems like a lot more teams are getting to 100 points more frequently. I am sure people are going to the FT line more.

My only concern is if they call all those fouls on the perimeter are they going to counter balance that with calling LESS fouls in the paint. And as it pertains to us, less fouls shooting fouls on Yao's opponents? That's my only worry.

But looking at the league from afar, you are right, it appears players can move around more easily which leads to more creativity. The creativity that players lost when the zones were put back in.

And it appears the new rules are REALLY hurting the Pistons!

 

It's helping Kobe Bryant, I know that.

 

Its helping teams like the suns and sonics also. Now quick, sweet shooting wingmen are at a premium.

 

All these rule changes suck, by the way. How are you supposed to build a team when the rules are constantly changing? Draft/trade for quick perimeter players in the late 90s, right after they outlaw hand-checking the first time, and then they install a zone and bring back hand-checking. Try to adjust to that, and now they outlaw hand-checking again. I'm sure there are more examples. It's ridiculous.

 

They should not allow hand checking, the zone, or beating up post players, and we will have the NBA of the 80's again. Man, I miss the 80's.

 

I second this. The zone is ruining the game and they seem to be calling less in the paint where our big guy gets beat all to hell.

 

Players were beat up much much more in the 80s (no layup rule). Also, hand-checking was legal then and utilized a lot more. No zone though.

 

I hate the zone.

 

Why didn't the zone kill European teams?

Seems like if the players could shoot from the outside, zones would be busted easily.

Mark

 

Mainly because they actually know how to play a zone. from what I see here in the NBA it's more of a makeshift man/zone type defense.

 

I know they allowed it the eighties and said stuff about how tough they were. However, I watch plenty of nba classics, and there is now way that they were more physical than today's nba. The refs never allowed it. If you were touched, they called it.

 

exactly. you always hear about big guys fouling hard on layups except:

a. it never seems to happen when i'm watching old games. free reign to the hoop

b. it always seems to be in the context of guys who were just too lazy to actually play D. i'll just flagrant foul this guy instead of try to be in position or make a block

c. there are no free layups now, at least not if someone is in the vicinity of the guy, the pat riley philosophy.

and guys did not get hammered in the post back then like they do now. kareem always seemed to be able to get his position with relative ease. saying the 80s were more physical than now is like saying i'm more attractive than brad pitt. neither is true.

and i wish there was no zone but it's kind of stupid to tell a team they have to put their defenders in a certain place instead of letting them defend how they please just so the offense can score more.

and how are the pistons doing so badly on D? the rockets aren't doing badly. other teams didn't just fall off. detroit went from possibly the best D of all time after rasheed joined the team to giving up 97 a night. amazing. that can't just be the new emphasis b/c the whole league isn't giving up 13 more a night.

 

I know the 'no layup' philosophy was definitely popularized by the Pistons in the late 80s. Once Jordan became the league's meal ticket, the flagrant foul was born. You know that there was definitely the fear of taking it to the hoop, at least when the Pistons were kicking butt. That does not exist now, nor has it for several years.

There are definitely free layups in the sense that the worst that can happen to you is a charging call, a blocked shot, or somebody fouling you trying to block your shot. Back then you were worried about your head getting taken off. That possibility/fear does not exist today.

Low-scoring games does not = 'physical'. Strategies focused on defense do not = 'physical'. Less contact is allowed today by defenders, that's just a fact.

The offense already has limits placed on them- you have to shoot within 24 seconds, you have to cross halfcourt in 8 seconds, you can't be in the lane for 3 seconds, you can't dribble in place closely guarded for 5 seconds, you can't have more than 3 guys on one side of the court, etc. The only limit that was placed on the defense in the 80s was that you had to guard your man.

They're probably not as hungry anymore. Plus they won their ring, now people are coming after them every night hard, whereas before, nobody cared, and they were taken by surprise. Human nature.

 

I still don't think the zone is as evil as some believe here. The illegal defense rule in the past is essentially saying that you have to guard your man even when you know he can't score. I think that's an unfair rule. Bad offensive players often occupy good defensive players.

Also, with illegal defense rule, the defense was pretty much passive. There is no other way of dictating with defense other than what Detroit did, which is to physically punish the opponent's offensive players. That's okay if you want to see those kind of games. To me, it made the game ugly.

With the abolition of illegal defense, teams can actually device creative defensive strategies. It's up to the offensive gurus to device creative offensive strategies to beat that. I think that's good for the game. If you just want to see a lot of actions (physical plays, or scoring), then the zone is not good. But if you enjoy smart strategies at both ends of the floor, allowing the zone is good. As I've always said, high scoring games aren't necessarily entertaining. If you don't believe me, just watch the All Star Game.

That said, I agree with Freak that constantly changing the rules just ruin any team building plan.