MSU Red Cedar Message Board

Stump the Schwab

Yeah, sure.

2005 - San Antonio Spurs - 1st in scoring defense
2007 - San Antonio Spurs - 1st in scoring defense
2008 - Boston Celtics - 2nd in scoring defense
2010 - Lakers - 9th in scoring defense

He said the last team to win with defense was the '04 Pistons, which is far from the truth. To complete the list:

06 Heat - 13th in scoring D
09 Lakers - 14th
11 Mavs - 10th

So basically, every team is in the top half in defense and all but 2 are top ten. The myth that NBA champions don't play defense is dumb and misinformed.

Big Ten scoring is down not because of the defense, but because of the lack of offense. ACC has much better players that can actually score points. Big Ten suffers from lack of offense - not a case of great defense.

And that's without addressing the myth that the NBA is higher-scoring than it was in previous decades. Go look at the averages from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. They scored 110-120 points every night.

If people want to talk about the lack of defensive intensity there's some merit. It's physically impossible to play 38 minutes a night, four times a week, with a 24-second shot clock, and d-up like a player on an elite college team. But it's ridiculous to suggest that defense doesn't matter in the NBA.

NBA could really use a shorter season. If games are missed from like the middle of Feb/start of March people would care. November- not so much

Playoffs are fun.

My whole point was that after the Piston's won with defense in 04 the NBA decided it didn't like that style of play. You saw it the next season as scoring average went up 5 points per game for both the spurs and pistons, the top two defenses both years. Are the teams that win the championship going to be in the top half in defense? Yes. Does that mean that they play the same kind of defense that used to be played in the NBA? Fuck no. Because the NBA won't allow it. What used to be physical, clean play is now free throws. Every time.

Let's look at who the Pistons went through to get to the Finals in 2004:

Round 1: Milwaukee Bucks (Michael Redd, Desmond Mason, Damon Jones, Joe Smith, Brian Skinner)
Round 2: New Jersey Nets (Kidd, Jefferson, K-Mart, Kerry Kittles, Jason Collins)
Round 3: Indiana Pacers (Ron Artest, Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, Jamaal Tinsley, Jeff Foster)

Gee whiz, what a murderer's row! Not to diminish that incredibly enjoyable 2004 championship run, but the talent pool -- especially the east -- was awful at the time. The Timberwolves had the best record in the league, and other than KG, it was a team full of old-timers and bums: Cassell, Sprewell, Olowokandi, Mad Dog, Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell ...

The league hasn't decided that you can't be physical. The 2008 Celtics played were just as good on defense. The difference is the talent pool is much, much, much deeper. It's not even debatable. Better players = more scoring.

The low point was 1999 (last lockout season) to 2003. Those were the years when the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets were going to the finals and getting slaughtered by the Spurs and Lakers. The West was much, much, much better in those seasons -- it was loaded with elite power forwards -- while the East was absolutely awful.

The 2002 and 2003 draft classes injected a ton of talent into the league, and free agent signings/trades began to balance things out, but things were still pretty ugly in 2004.

Check the 2004 East standings: Only two teams won 50+ games (Indy and Detroit), and only two other teams had winning records. The 5-8 seeds in the 2004 East playoffs:

5 New Orleans (41-41)
6 Milwaukee Bucks (41-41)
7 New York Kicks (39-43)
8 Boston Celtics (36-46)

2003 was even worse. The Pistons were the sole 50-win team in the entire conference, and Jersey won 49 games. Meanwhile, the West had two 60-win teams, a 59-win team, and three more 50+ win teams.

Those 2004 Pacers and Pistons teams were tough, physical clubs, and the talent on those clubs was good for that specific era, but from a historical standpoint, they were pretty weak.

Nope. I'd love it if the NBA canceled the season.

Only bad thing would be the opening of every Sportscenter would be a 20 minute analysis on how nothing happened today regarding the NBA lockout. Then they would bring analysts in. Chris Broussard would tell us all why the lockout is racially motivated. Then we would have analysis and on what Lebron James did with his day off.

Plus, you know damn well that with the players potentially going overseas during the lockout, we would have to watch highlights of a bunch of European teams that no one gives a damn about because Kobe or some other rich guy is playing on some random team in the middle of nowhere.

But nonetheless, I think it would be awesome to see the NBA cancel the season. This thread was also done on the main board and the overwhelming majority also said they wouldn't care. I really think the NBA is losing ground on the other pro sports.

Yes... Because I don't I'm alone in thinking that I'd rather see a high scoring free throw-a-thon than a low scoring game...