Ron Artest and culture

Next time you watch a game and see the 16-foot-wide lane, you see Wilt's impact on the game.

He wouldn't have scored 50 a game against 1990s defenses, but he's still one of the only players who had the rules changed to stop him. The reason why is the way fouls have been called has become a lot more lax -- any kind of contact at all was a foul in the 1960s. By the 1990s, pretty much any contact in the post that didn't (to quote Bob Knight) include a machete, a baseball bat and a gun was legal.

Basketball at all levels was a more offensive game in the 1960s because of the way the game was called. Early ABA games had 150-130 scores common. College teams scored in the 90s and 100s consistently (with no shot clock). High school games in IN, where I am, were consistently in the 70s and 80s, with no shot clock.

 

Basketball was a more offensive game in the 1960s-70s-80s for ONE PRIMARY REASON: Teams did not routinely milk the shot clock (or in college, the game clock) trying to get a "better shot" (theoretically, an ideal shot).

Teams came down court and went into their offense. They ran a play, made a couple passes, ran a guy through a pick or two, then they took a shot (sometimes even a 10-15-foot jump shot).

There was also a wonderful thing called a "fast break," in which a player gets a rebound, makes a quick outlet pass, the guard brings the ball down court, the offense outnumbers the defense, the ball goes to the open player, and the offense gets a shot (frequently a layup, dunk or short jumper). Since about 1990, this risky and fundamentally unsound tactic has been effectively banned from the sport.

With the institution of the shot clock and 3-point shot, all that went out the window. 95% of all clipboard-waving coaches would shit their shorts right there on the sidelines if their team pushed the ball downcourt and took a shot after only burning up 5 seconds of the shot clock.

This is the one thing -- even more than the changes in defensive contact allowed, although that's a big part of it too -- that strikes you when you see game tapes from before about 1990. Teams come downcourt and shoot. They don't fuck around burning the shot clock down to 5 seconds before taking a shot.

The one most glaring difference statistically between basketball in the 1960s/70s and now is not shooting percentage, FT percentage, fouls called, or anything else. Even the existence of the 3-point shot is not as major an influence.

The most glaring difference in basketball between then and now is field goal attempts per game, which is almost entirely an elective decision by the offense.

 

FGA per game has been a major change.

But the 3-pointer has been one, too, at least in the way teams use it. In the early years of the 3, a team would generally attempt >5 3s per game (there were teams that would have 20-30 3FG made and 70-80 3FG attempted *per season*).

Now, the average team attempts 15+ 3-pointers a game, which means a lot of those extra shots are low-percentage shots.

The game of basketball, at all levels, has become a game of post-ups and 3-pointers, with virtually nothing in-between.

But the way the rules were enforced in the 1960s and 1970s was substantially different than the way they were enforced in the 1990s (and beyond). Because almost any contact by the defender was a foul, the offense had the advantage, so pushing the ball and going for whatever shot is available was advantageous.

Once contact started being let go and handchecking, bumping cutters and wrestling in the post became defensive tactics instead of fouls, the advantage goes to the defense, so coaches begin to have to devise ways to beat the defense via half-court offense.

The fast break is a wonderful thing. No basketball team should ever eschew the break.

 

Well, I'll concede I never saw him live, but as a recovering classic sports junkie, I have seen replays of several of his entire games, so it's not ALL from the almanacs.

And, frankly, that's kinda where I formed this opinion. I was suprised how limited his skill set appeared. Seems like he scored most of his points on dunks and those little flip shots and finger rolls around the hoop, where he'd just sorta drop the ball over his physically inferior defender. Sorry but a lot of those rolls he's not even getting off if he's got a 90s center likes like Mutombo, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq or Mourning in his face. He also had a little turnaround J from a bit further out, but that's about it that I saw. No real ballhandling or perimeter skills, so push him outside the lane area and he's worthless. And he was a horrendous free throw shooter, even worse than Shaq, so you could hack a shack him all night if you wanted to.

Plus, as already mentioned, you really have to watch those games to get how much softer the defenses were. In his early career he had that smaller lane so he could just go park it next to hoop, he almost never got doubled, and the guy guarding him rarely even tried to put a body on him--they really took that non contact thing seriously back then--instead he'd set up a step or two behind Wilt with the arms up and try to play him straight up. Given that (except for Russell) that was always someone far shorter, weaker and slower, it was usually futile--some nights it might as well have been a broom guarding him.

But that ain't happening in the 90s--not for a second. The wider lane is pushing him out further from the beginning, he's getting double-teamed and pushed and knocked around constantly, and frequently by guys who are just as big, strong, or fast as he is. Plus, as Starman mentioned, teams simply took far fewer shots per game in the 90s which also would've meant far fewer looks for Wilt.

No doubting that Wilt was an extraordinary physical specimen--over 7 feet and ALSO freakishly strong and athletic--nobody'd ever seen a combination remotely like that back then, he was the first of his kind and the ONLY for several years there. But by the 90s there were others starting across the league.