Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
The point was made that if you look at classic games shots that were taken would be considered "bad" shots now because teams can run offense to get better looks for better players. If the rules made/allowed those shots to be "good" or at least required and there wasn't a chance to work for a better one, then wouldn't that increase scoring and required skill on the floor to make those plays and shots?
|
I said if you look at classic games, players would take shots that were 10 or 15 feet regardless of how much offense was ran. The best example of this was in this Final Four. Mitch McGrary starting shooting a shot around the FT line against the Syracuse zone. He was wide open and took about 3 of those shots and made them in the Semifinal game. And McGary took that shot because the defense was doing everything to close out on the 3 point shooters of Michigan and left a hole open in the defense. If big guys alone started taking that shot, then the defense would have to close on them and open up other shots. The floor is only going to be open if a step or two inside the 3 point line are acceptable shots. The problem is offense have a "Three or nothing" mentality. Teams run much more motion offenses today than they did 30 years ago. Actually Indiana and Bobby Knight was one of the few that ran that kind of offense for years and now everyone runs that style of offense and hardly anyone runs the UNLV or LMU offense.
Just look at the Grinell offense where the goal is to shoot every 7 seconds and they score in the 100s often. There is a HS team in my area that runs that same fast offense and they score in the 100s too, but often are not very successful overall when it comes to winning. Why? Because teams choose to play with them and run and it is not unusual to have a game with more points than any other game you can officiate. And I also do not see necessarily less fouls, but teams make it their mission to score and take whatever shot is open.