Jordan vs. Zone Defense MYTH

[Big Penny]

The bottom line had less to do with the zone defenses themselves, but the rules set around what defenders could and couldn't do in help situations. Overall though, for reasons beyond the rules themselves, defenses are far better today than they used to be.

no they're not... you do know ZONE defenses and the outruling of handchecking happened because the NBA wanted Higher Scoring games, and better offense.

[Real Deal]

I'm forcing myself not to dive back into Kobe and Shaq.

 

Back to Jordan and the zone...he did face them, no doubt. Not to the extent Bryant has, obviously, because the league didn't allow it all of the time (and I'm talking Boston vs. Bryant as an example, Phoenix's zone this season is another, and plenty of other teams who have went to it).

 

But I will say this much: I have never seen a single player doubled and triple-teamed as much as Kobe, other than Shaq. That includes Michael. I've seen five Memphis players all collapse to stop Kobe at the rim, when the other four LA players are at least 10 feet away from the drive. I've seen players doubling Bryant off the ball and 23 feet away from the rim, something I've actually never seen done against any other player since I've been watching the game. If I recall correctly, it was the Nets who triple-teamed Bryant on an inbounds play, last second attempt to win the game, before the ball was even thrown in.

 

Jordan has been tagged with Payton, Dumars, and other significant perimeter defenders. He's dropped buckets on Ewing, Eaton, Hakeem, Mourning and Malone.

 

Bryant has tackled Bowen, Battier, Bell, Wallace, Prince, Duncan, Howard, Garnett...but I think the most notable would be the actual teams. The 2008 Celtics were one of the greatest defensive teams of all-time. Same can be said for the 2004 Pistons, 2004 Spurs, 2004 Wolves, 2001 Sixers, and another 2-3 teams during the 2004 season (Pacers and Nets are two, I believe...don't feel like looking that up though).

 

For Jordan's sake, the 1993, 1994 and 1997 Knicks were monsters on the defensive end. The 1998 Spurs held opponents to .411 shooting, second of all-time since Jordan's rookie season (2004 Spurs top everyone, at .409 FG).

 

But, of the top 20 oppFG% teams since Jordan's rookie season, only five of them are pre-1999, after Jordan's retirement.

 

I'm sure the defensive rating numbers are similar, even though they are strongly influenced by offensive pace.

 

And...the offensive pace was much different as well. Jordan averaged 37 PPG when his Bulls were averaging at least seven more shots per game than Bryant's 2006 Lakers. It wasn't rare to see teams scoring 130 points against each other when Jordan was dropping his bombs. Portland was averaging 118 PPG that season, while the Suns were leading the league at 108 PPG in 2006, followed by the Sonics at under 103. Twelve teams averaged 110+ PPG in 1986.

 

There's always an argument against Jordan's production, just as there is for Wilt.

[Real Deal]

no they're not... you do know ZONE defenses and the outruling of handchecking happened because the NBA wanted Higher Scoring games, and better offense.

Allowing zone defense would decrease scoring. The league basically gave teams an extra way of playing defense, and teams that were once average to pathetic defensively could basically "cheat" on the defensive end. You saw this with Phoenix, against us, this post-season.

[Nitro]

Real Deal, just a few things...

 

-I really don't think using any more zone than what was allowed in Jordan's era makes any substantial difference to their offensive production. The zone is not hard to beat as long as you make the correct, efficient plays. Look at the way Wade sliced up the Celtics' defense this post-season, averaging 33/7/6 on over 56% shooting for the series. Besides his obvious 3pt outburst at the end of Game 4, he was making sharp decisions on how to attack the defense and he had the ability to weave through the help defense to get to the rim (much like MJ in the original video I posted where they show him dodging Rodman for the layup). There's a reason why they took away hand-checking and allowed zone...to increase offense league-wise.

 

-Yes, Jordan in the '80's played in a more uptempo league. However, look at what Jordan did when he came back from essentially 2 years of retirement back at the start of the 2nd 3-peat- 30/7/4 on 50% shooting (43% from 3), and that was with him playing the 2nd lowest minutes of his career up until that point. During that season the league average for PPG and FG % were both lower than the 2010 NBA season. That post-season he dropped over 35pts in 3 of the 5 games against the Knicks. He gutted the GREAT Miami Heat defense in the post-season in 1997. As he did against the Bad Boy Pistons, where games were low-scoring for that decade.

 

-Honestly, I think putting into effective defensive 3-second rules as well as taking out hand-checking is more beneficial to the defensive player than the eventual legality of the zone (which was less enforced than the current hand-checking and 3-second rule). IMO of course.

[Poe]

+1 @ Real Deal. He explained a lot of what I was thinking, of course in much greater detail with solid facts that I don't have because he knows more than me. I didn't follow basketball at all in the 90s, but I know defenses are better now than they used to be.

 

 

And btw, it's not a ridiculous statement to say that basketball is growing as a sport.

[Erick Blasco]

I think individual teams artificially paint the era of the 90's as a great defensive league, when league wide offensive ratings of today (05-current...05 is when they outlawed handchecking...the offensive ratings of 03-04 are hideously low) are lower than they were throughout the 90's. This defensive greatness of the 90's is as much of a myth as the myths surrounding Jordan in the video.

 

If the San Antonio Spurs and Boston Celtics played in 1993, they'd be romanticized as much as the Bad Boy Pistons, and Knicks. Perhaps 20 years from now, people will romanticize the late 2000's as a great defensive era...

 

 

Looking through the bias of the person who came up with the video (traps were always legal, and aren't a true zone...of course you match up after a trap, you're double teaming a guy 50 feet from the ball. What are you going to do, have a guy scramble to check his own man on the other end of the floor?), what you see is that the same thinks Kobe deals with today, Jordan dealt with before---and Jordan was still more efficient than Kobe.

 

And pure zones aren't that effective. Any patient offense can dissect a zone within a possession or two of realizing it exists.

[Nitro]

And btw, it's not a ridiculous statement to say that basketball is growing as a sport.

 

Again, it's really only grown from an athletic standpoint. Skill-wise it has regressed. It should be no surprise that Steve Nash, one of the least athletic PG's in the league, is also arguably the best offensive PG (I'd pick Paul, but it's debatable at least). For all the new technology and such, players don't know how to fully take advantage of it because they weren't taught many of the fundementals growing up because they were allowed to dominate in AAU leagues on pure athleticism. I mean, even if you look at the stars of the league today, so many of them are dumb as a brick when it comes to certain, simple philosophies.

 

I think individual teams artificially paint the era of the 90's as a great defensive league, when league wide offensive ratings of today (05-current...05 is when they outlawed handchecking...the offensive ratings of 03-04 are hideously low) are lower than they were throughout the 90's. This defensive greatness of the 90's is as much of a myth as the myths surrounding Jordan in the video.

 

If the San Antonio Spurs and Boston Celtics played in 1993, they'd be romanticized as much as the Bad Boy Pistons, and Knicks. Perhaps 20 years from now, people will romanticize the late 2000's as a great defensive era...

 

 

Looking through the bias of the person who came up with the video (traps were always legal, and aren't a true zone...of course you match up after a trap, you're double teaming a guy 50 feet from the ball. What are you going to do, have a guy scramble to check his own man on the other end of the floor?), what you see is that the same thinks Kobe deals with today, Jordan dealt with before---and Jordan was still more efficient than Kobe.

 

And pure zones aren't that effective. Any patient offense can dissect a zone within a possession or two of realizing it exists.

 

I agree with pretty much everything. There is no doubt the Spurs of a few seasons ago, Celtics and 2004-2005 Pistons are some of the greaest defensive teams in NBA history. However, I would say as a league, the mid-late '90's were more of a defensive league than today's NBA. If you look at the numbers, the defensive ratings, PPG, FG % and pace were all a bit lower during the mid-late '90's than in the NBA during the last 3 seasons.

 

Also, I will say the one thing that Kobe doesn't have to face that Jordan did is the 3 second rule on defense. If you look at one of his other videos, he clearly shows plenty of instances where Kobe/LeBron get free paths to the basket because players are so weary of getting the 3 second call. In the '80's and '90's where there were so many great shot-blockers and defensive Centers, I do think that makes a difference.

[AboveLegit]

I think some people get offended and think that if you say Jordan could beat a double team better than Bryant, you're saying that it's because he can jump twice as high or whatever. While Jordan was definitely better at jumping from farther and got more hangtime (which both happen when you are quicker of foot), he doesn't jump substantially higher than any of those guys.

 

The difference between the best of the best is usually not that great... Jordan, Pippen, Erving, James, Bryant, McGrady, Carter... they all get up about the same.

 

I said usually...

 

There is one thing that makes Jordan so dramatically different and special. That helped him beat double teams like no other...

 

His footspeed...

 

Never has a high-flying swingman been even remotely as quick as Jordan... he literally had the first step and the foot speed of a very quick 6'1" point guard.

 

If you gave Kobe Bryant John Stockton's first step, he'd be doing what Jordan did in Chuck Daley's words... "embarrassing the league." Kobe has definitely made the league a place that he has continued success in. Since Jordan, other than Shaq, I don't think anyone, including Duncan, has "embarrassed" the league.

 

Jordan could take ridiculous angles... against the Pistons he looks closed off on many double teams, but he JUST BARELY gets the angle on a Piston defender and the next thing you know he's laying it in with someone hitting him in the back. And that is the play that separates him from Kobe, who would JUST BARELY be closed off, forcing him back to the perimeter and into a jumper.

 

The next thing that separates Jordan from Kobe is something that a lot of high flyers have... ridiculous pound for pound strength. Erving and Pippen both had that ability to get hit and not be fazed by it. Carter, Bryant, McGrady? Not so much. Now that is not as glaring a difference. Kobe is strong and he does have forceful power... but he's an 8.5 whereas Jordan would be a 10. Magic once said "see Michael... has the strength of a big man.... that's what makes it so hard to face him."

 

It is also hilarious that people think defenses are better now. There were fouls committed on Jordan that weren't even flagrants in 1989 that would warrant 15 game suspensions now. Just how good could Jordan have been if clotheslining was a 15 game suspension? The Pistons broke Scottie Pippen's nose and I believe nobody was suspended. If they were it was nothing big. Jordan was going off during the Knicks despite dirty moves like Greg Anthony throwing him to the ground. And no, defensively, the 06 Suns aren't anything like the 92 Knicks.

 

Back in Jordan's prime the game was played differently, defense was actually allowed to be played and the defensive player was given as much freedom as the offensive player. Nowadays the rules are so much in favor for the offensive player that it doesn't make any sense and the reason for this is because of the overall lack of sound fundamentals by todays players. Could you imagine some of these so called great players of today having to play in an era where they could be hand checked and bumped without a foul being called? The offensive player complains so much in todays game it's ridiculous...I don't think they could survive playing in an era where there was rough play allowed.

[Real Deal]

It is also hilarious that people think defenses are better now. There were fouls committed on Jordan that weren't even flagrants in 1989 that would warrant 15 game suspensions now. Just how good could Jordan have been if clotheslining was a 15 game suspension? The Pistons broke Scottie Pippen's nose and I believe nobody was suspended. If they were it was nothing big. Jordan was going off during the Knicks despite dirty moves like Greg Anthony throwing him to the ground. And no, defensively, the 06 Suns aren't anything like the 92 Knicks.

Breaking someone's nose and clotheslining someone isn't playing defense. Just because they weren't handing out suspensions for clotheslines doesn't mean they weren't calling them as fouls.

 

The 2006 Suns were never a good defensive team...they were average, in the middle of the league. But the 2008 Celtics were a better defensive team than the 1992 Knicks, and so were the 2004 Spurs.

 

I'm not sure what the point is...

[AboveLegit]

Breaking someone's nose and clotheslining someone isn't playing defense. Just because they weren't handing out suspensions for clotheslines doesn't mean they weren't calling them as fouls.

 

The 2006 Suns were never a good defensive team...they were average, in the middle of the league. But the 2008 Celtics were a better defensive team than the 1992 Knicks, and so were the 2004 Spurs.

 

I'm not sure what the point is...

It's an example of how tough defenses were in Jordan's era. I just do not understand how one can say defenses are better than they were in the 90's..or even the 80's.

 

Here's another point I want to make...

 

I think lesser defenders were more prevalent in Jordan's era because there was more need for pure, real basketball players. There wasn't a need for "specialist" defenders, that pretty much have no other gifts, because of the lack of hand check rules. Players didn't need to be as savvy as Battier and Artest, who DO position themselves masterfully in front of the leagues best offensive juggernauts. Guys could simply keep a hand on an opponents jersey, and shadow them physically all over the court, and everytime a player ran around and through screens, opponents teammates could physically impede them in a way that is NOW called a foul.

 

The league today is a lot tougher on defenders than it was back then, but I'm truly not certain if it means either era had more talented defenders, relative to what they were allowed to do. The pros of having defensive specialists is that they are elite at that skill and it doesn't matter what the rules are. The cons of it are that with a guy like that on the floor, there is only so much your opponent has to do to defend them, allowing team defenses to focus elsewhere. Part of the reason that league PPG went down for awhile after the hand check rules were in place was because teams added these guys with defensive only skills, to the detriment of their own offense. Back in MJ's days, a guy like Dumars had Bruce-Bowen-equivalent defensive skills (relative to being able to hand check) but he could also drop 40 on you, so you had to make sure you could match him with a scorer/defender option. Thats what made the Bulls so great in the 90's. In one year, they had THREE players on the all-defensive 1st team. And they finished in the top 5 in BOTH scoring and defense almost every single title year, including finishing 1st in BOTH categories in their dominant 1996 season, when they set almost every team record in history.

 

Had the league in the early 90's had the same rules as today, I'm sure that we would have seen some different, 'failed' players make it in the league as the same types of specialists.

 

And this is also why I think the competition in the league back then was greater.

[Real Deal]

It's sort of easy to step on your argument, though. Players that were focused on both offense and defense were wearing themselves down on both sides of the ball. Today, defensive-minded players are usually spot-up shooters (Bowen, Battier, Bell, Artest are good examples) and they take pride in putting 100% effort on defense, 35-40 minutes every game, less fatigued going into the fourth.

 

But there are still excellent defenders that actually score 25-30, also. Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Paul and Howard are all sitting on defensive team awards.

 

And then you still have the teams that hold their opponents to the lowest FG% in the history of the league, and a lot of them are in this era, little or nothing to do with pace.

 

Keep in mind: tough play and great defense don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Nobody got away with dropping Rambis on his back, just like Ariza didn't get away with dropping Fernandez. Players weren't thrown out of the game for a hard, nasty foul...but they were still called for the foul. Steve Nash could go clip a player from behind, drop them on their backs during elevation, and whether or not he gets tossed for that, it doesn't mean he's playing better defense. He's just being more physical (and stupid).

 

Basically, what I think is that defensive schemes in the 90's were more set on stopping the team. Today, they are geared towards stopping the superstar, because more than ever, the league is now more superstar-heavy than it ever was (if that makes sense). That's why teams seek guys like Sefolosha, Afflalo, Batum, Pietrus, and Matthews...guys that probably wouldn't be starting ten years ago because James Harden, JR Smith and others are actually better offensive players. And because the league is centered around stopping the superstar, one would have to think things are a bit more difficult for Bryant and Durant.

[Erick Blasco]

It's an example of how tough defenses were in Jordan's era. I just do not understand how one can say defenses are better than they were in the 90's..or even the 80's.

 

Name me some good defenders on the late 80's and 1990's...

 

Warriors

Kings

Suns

Clippers

Nuggets

Sonics (aside from Payton, McMillian, and when they had Detlef Schrempf)

T-Wolves

Mavericks

Grizzlies

Blazers

 

Hawks

Bullets/Wizards

Hornets

Raptors

Sixers

Nets

Cavs

Bucks

Magic

 

 

You'll name maybe one or two a franchise. Now, tell me if any of those teams had anything more than above average team defenses?

 

 

Here are your defenses---the Bad Boys and the Celtics, who were both aging as the Bulls entered their prime. After the early 90's, the defenses dropped off the map. The Pacers. The Knicks, who often fielded four great defenders and Patrick Ewing, who chased the ball and blocked shots, and then the Riley-led Heat.

 

That's a few good defenses every couple of seasons, much like today.

 

In the West, you had the late 90's Spurs, and the mid 90's Spurs, but Robinson was always punked by better centers in the playoffs.

Utah was always pretty solid, as were the Rockets, and the end of the Showtime Lakers.

 

 

People remember the Pistons and Celtics and Bulls. Nobody remembers the nine or ten defenses who sucked.

 

People remember the Bulls, Knicks, Heat, and Pacers.Nobody remembers the other eight or nine teams who sucked.

 

People remember David Robinson---and conveniently forget that Dennis Rodman thought Robinson was a p***y who was overrated as a defender. Nobody's impressed with the Nick Van Exel/Eddie Jones Lakers' defense. Nobody's impressed with whoever Milwaukee trotted out to the floor in the 90's.

 

10 years from now, people will remember the early decade Sixers, Pacers, and Pistons, and Lakers, and Spurs, and Kings. They'll remember today's Celtics, and Cavs, and Magic, and Spurs, and Lakers, and Ron Artest, and Shane Battier, and Dwight Howard, and 10 years from now, people will say "wow, those guys can defend. All we have is (insert name of player 10 years from now)."

 

Here's the thing. Teams that are committed to winning will play great defense. Teams will assemble rosters based on defense, and players will commit to defense. About five or six teams a year follow this blueprint and they'll be remembered.

 

Teams that suck will suck across any era. Just because you know that there are teams in this era that play sucky defense, and nobody talks about random teams from other eras that played sucky defense, doesn't mean there was better defense in that older era.

[SuperFuentes]

Dumars

 

Asked in July if he could defend Jordan under today’s interpretation of the rules, Dumars first laughed, then offered a long pause before replying, “It would have been virtually impossible to defend Michael Jordan based on the way the game’s being called right now.”

 

Rod Thorn

“It’s more difficult now to guard the quick wing player who can handle the ball,” Thorn said of the change. “I think it helps skilled players over someone who just has strength or toughness. What the NBA is trying to do is promote unimpeded movement for dribblers or cutters.”

 

 

Pippen: The defensive rules, the hand checking, the ability to make contact on a guy in certain areas, the ability to come over in the lane to stop guys from getting to the basket, that's all been taken away from the game. There is no contact up on the floor. The way I played Magic Johnson in the '91 Finals, I would have fouled out the first time down court. To compare how someone would have played Michael Jordan, Chuck Daly would send someone to wear him down. Even though he may get 30 or 40 points, they're going to be a hard 30 points. But in today's game, you can't put that physical wear and tear on a guy.

 

Stu Jackson (the man behind the new rules)

The hand check has always been a part of pro basketball. What we have done is interpret the hand check slightly different in that, if a defender has what I’ll refer to as a “stayed hand” on the defender, e.g. with a stiffened elbow, a foul on the defense would be called if it affects the offensive player's speed, rhythm or balance. It's been five years since we really began to interpret the hand check in this way, and we continue to focus on enforcement.

 

Three years ago, before the ’04-05 season, we also began to really interpret and enforce the forearm and body check, where by we had defenders either placing a hand or a forearm on an offensive player’s shoulder or hip in an effort to slow them down and give them a defensive advantage in terms of sliding in front of the offensive player. When we disallowed that – the use of the hand, the use of the forearm to the shoulder, the hip, the body – that in conjunction with the hand check interpretation started to give offensive players on the perimeter more offensive freedom.

 

It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.