If they had Kareem, Suns fans know they would have beaten Dave Cowens' Celtics in the 1976 Finals. Derek Fowles/NBAE via Getty Images

Ah, what irony. After I took a look at the decline in scoring and what can be done about it, offense has staged a dramatic comeback at the beginning of the 2004-05 season. Scoring is already up over a point a game from last year's average and history tells us it only increases as the season progresses, so the average could be quite a bit higher by season's end.

Hordes of readers e-mailed in with their own thoughts on how to unchain offenses. We'll get to those in a minute as I go through the 'bag, but first, here are some other thoughts from the citizenry:

Why didn't you bring up how we [Suns fans] lost Kareem and David Robinson to coin tosses for good measure? You couId name the Suns' misfortune Curse of Kareem, or Curse of the coin works for me. 
  -- Andy Graham, Tempe, Ariz.

The Curse of the Coin! Brilliant! In focusing on the Suns' many playoff failings, I neglected a completely different aspect of Phoenix's Phailures. The Suns could have had Kevin Johnson, Charles Barkley and The Admiral romping through the league in the mid '90s instead of choking against the Rockets. And getting Neal Walk was a fairly depressing consolation prize when they were a heads/tails call away from landing the artist formerly known as Lew Alcindor. Maybe the Suns can win the draft lottery one of these years and make up for it, although with their luck it will be one of those Kwame Brown/Tyson Chandler years.

Paul Pierce used to be an amazing 40 percent 3-point shooter. What has happened to lower that so much over the recent years? 
  -- Przemek Urban, Chicago

Outstanding question. In his first four seasons, Pierce shot 41, 34, 38 and 40 percent on 3-pointers. The last two years he's made a piddling 30 percent, and so far this season he's 4-for-14.

So what happened? Here's my hypothesis: Pierce has had to take on an ever-increasing responsibility for creating offense with the departure of Boston's other scoring options over the past two seasons, especially after the Antoine Walker trade. So instead of spotting up for open 3s off other people's penetration, Pierce's tries have been increasingly off the dribble or with a hand in his face, so his percentage has declined. That also would explain why he tries fewer 3s than he used to even though he's taking more overall shots.

Why isn't Kirk Hinrich on your breakout players list or even the honorable mention? This is the kid who got lost in the shuffle last year amid the LeBron and 'Melo hysteria. He's hard-nosed, actually plays defense and led all rookies in assists per game last season. He didn't score much last year (probably because Jamal Crawford was in the lineup) but his performance in the Wizards game (32 points) last week proved he can put the ball in the basket. In addition, Hinrich's stats last season were pretty similar to those of Dwyane Wade, who may have scored more but recorded fewer assists than the Bulls' point guard. 
  -- Jeff Jass, Kansas City, Mo.

I got several letters about not having Hinrich on the list, which makes me wonder if maybe Mr. and Mrs. Hinrich aren't reading my stuff. I like Hinrich well enough, especially on defense, but I was looking at guys who can accomplish vastly more than they did a year go, and I'm not sure he qualifies.

Hinrich played 36 minutes a game as a rookie, so that number can't increase very much this year. He only averaged 12 points a night in all of those minutes, so he'd have to get a lot more productive in his time on the court in order to register on the break-out scale. For him to do that means creating a lot more shots off the dribble, which he didn't do much of a year ago. I could see him maybe upping his averages to 15 points and 7.5 assists or so, but I'm not sure that kind of jump in a second-year guy is particularly noteworthy.

I'm a huge Pacers fan, but I disagree with the idea that Jonathan Bender will have a "hard time not winning the Sixth Man award."  JB isn't even the best bench player on the Pacers; Stephen Jackson is. I think that comment might be better suited to Jackson than Bender. 
  -- Zach Little, Chicago

I should have been a little more clear. While Jackson is expected to get the bulk of the minutes, the Pacers will have no choice but to give those minutes to Bender if he plays up to his ability. More important was my little-noticed premonition that Reggie Miller would break his finger on somebody's jersey in the final preseason game and move Jackson into the starting lineup.

What about Tayshaun Prince? A lot of people are talking about what great improvement he's capable of over last year. Can we all say Defensive Player of the Year? 
  -- Joel Davis, Owosso, Mich.

	MAILBAG Submit a comment or question for John. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

I wouldn't be surprised if Prince won DPY since I thought he should have won it last year. But I don't foresee any great improvement offensively or on the glass. He is who he is -- an amazing defensive stopper who can make a few plays around the basket but only creates shots if he has a half-foot height advantage.

With all this positive talk about Mike Sweetney and Trevor Ariza in New York, could the Knicks package Sweetney, Kurt Thomas, or Ariza with one of their big contracts and finally get some cap relief and use the money wisely on a free agent? 
  -- Nat Greenwald, Brooklyn, N.Y.

The Knicks have no chance at cap relief for several years because Stephon Marbury, Allan Houston, Jamal Crawford and Tim Thomas are signed until Halley's Comet returns, and that alone uses up the entire cap and then some. Instead, I think the idea for the Knicks is that one of these days they should actually keep one of their young players rather than unloading them at the first whiff of a deal for an overpaid 30-something former All-Star. That's the only way they can develop a superstar-caliber player, because you can't sign somebody like that for the mid-level, and you can't get him in a trade for your overpaid scrubs. But I doubt Isiah Thomas has the patience to see that through.

Can the Bulls make the second round of the playoffs?
  -- Devin Kelley, Kansas City, Mo.

That depends. If you mean under the current system, no. But if the NBA went to a 29-team playoff system, and the 28th and 29th seeded teams played each other in the first round, then it's conceivable that the Bulls could win that series and advance to the second round.

Defense

As I mentioned, the e-mails flooded in on the topic of defense, so it gets it's own special piece of mailbag real estate. Here's what the readers have to say:

What effect do you think reducing the shot clock from 24 seconds to 22 or 20 seconds would have on the game? Would this have been a better rule change than the 8 second backcourt or adding zone defense? 
  -- Deepak Eachempati, Houston

It would certainly increase the pace, and it might not decrease the quality of shots that much. Teams would look to run more and probably would go to the rim more rather than wheeling it around the perimeter looking for a 3. The drawback is that the reduction in 3-pointers could mean overall scoring might not change any.

To speed up the game and increase scoring, it might be a good idea to reward an extra point if the basket is made within the first 8 seconds of the shot clock. You would reward the fast-breaking teams and you would stop the annoying slow play in the last 3-4 minutes of a game. 
  -- Per Hansen, Copenhagen, Denmark

A few other readers suggested the same thing. It certainly would speed up the game, but I wonder if it's a little draconian. We'd all like the game to be a little faster, but we don't need Loyola Marymount circa 1990 here. Additionally, it puts huge pressure on both the timekeeper and the officials to determine whether teams get the extra point.

I've always thought that the league could spur offense by lengthening and widening the court. As it stands now, the players have outgrown it. Their speed and quickness has made it easier to cover more of the court defensively. Making the court bigger would allow for better spacing for the offense to operate and the extra room behind the basket would create some interesting and new passing lanes, like in hockey with a player behind the net. 
  -- Kevin Marshall, Los Angeles

You're absolutely right. Nearly everyone agrees that it would be a good thing for the game. Oh, one other thing: It will never happen. Adding that space to the court removes it from the crowd, which takes expensive courtside seats out of every NBA arena, which crushes the owners' profit margins far more than a decrease in scoring ever could.

Would you agree that the combination of marginally educated high school kids who are only familiar with prep offenses and coaches who have never played the pro game (and therefore cannot teach scoring) are the biggest culprits in holding down NBA offenses? 
  -- K.T. Victor, Houston

The kids are an easy target, but there's just one problem with that hypothesis. Normally, rookies and second-year players struggle much more on defense than they do on offense. Think of a young Eddy Curry, Carmelo Anthony or Jason Richardson floating downcourt with no idea of who he was guarding. These guys could put it in the basket the day they showed up in the league, but it's taken a few years for them to figure out how to stop their opponent.

Defense makes the game more exciting for me. I used to hate basketball in the '80s because of the back-and-forth, go-and-score-and-back-again idiocy. Basketball has a long, long, long way to go before the scoring style turns to that of hockey. 
  -- Jeffrey Jade, Portland, Maine

You raise a good point; we should appreciate the defense that's being played out there. But I hear so many people lamenting the way the NBA game is played right now that it's safe to assume the vast majority of fans would like to see some more offense. And they're the ones who pay the bills.

Another factor most overlook in dissecting the reasons behind the drop in scoring is that today's players are more athletic and play a different brand of defense than those of the past Do you think Tom Chambers would be as awesome now as he was back then? Personally, I don't think so. 
  -- Jeff, San Diego

Tom Chambers was awesome?

To help offensive production, the NBA should reduce the number of personal fouls allowed, from six to five. Currently, teams don't run because a lot of coaches seem to think that making an opponent play defense is a lot more taxing than allowing them to the coaching mentality now is that you make teams play defense because it wears out players more than playing offense. In addition, no team will let an easy basket go uncontested considering free-throw shooting is so bad. My guess is that the NBA wants players like Shaquille O'Neal to have six fouls so he isn't fouling out all the time. 
  -- Scott Brooks, Anderson, S.C.

Great to hear from you, Scott. You were an underrated force in leading the remarkable Albany Patroons to a 48-6 record and the CBA title back in '88, and I always thought the Rockets should have used you more in that title run in '94 (OK, perhaps you're not that Scott Brooks).

The foul idea is a good one in that it would limit the number of blatant, Charles Oakley-esque hacks under the basket and force players to let a guy go if he has a clear shot at the rim. There's a lingering fear that superstars would be able to get away with murder from refs who are reluctant to hit them with an early second or third foul, but overall I think your suggestion has quite a bit of merit. Maybe the D-League can try that one next.

I think you make good points, but I'm still baffled as to how people don't consider the excessive charging violations as a huge inhibitor to scoring. If primetime players such as Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter are afraid to take the ball to the rim for fear of getting undercut or getting called for a charge, they're going to take the boring 18-foot jumpshot. This is not only a lower percentage shot, but it doesn't allow a shooter to get open from a collapsing defense. This helps slow the game down, and it lowers shooting percentages. -
  -- Christopher Grant, Malden, Mass.

OK, I'll take the bait, because I'm annoyed about how NBA referees call charging, too. Once a player leaves the floor, you can't step in under him. Period. But I've yet to see a ref who calls it that way. It's even worse in college, but the NBA is bad enough. Obviously, you have to call legit charging fouls, but having guys step in to low-bridge drivers and get fraudulent charges is terrible for the game. As you point out, it also has the secondary effect of encouraging the best players to shy away from contact and shoot jumpers, which produces a less-than-compelling product.

Why didn't you cite the NBA's expansion over the past two decades as another possible reason for the decrease in points scored per game? With more teams comes more opportunity, and it's plain to see that some of the "professionals" in today's NBA wouldn't make it onto a roster in the mid-'80's. This might be difficult to illustrate from a strictly statistical approach, but it would be interesting to see how scoring was affected immediately after each year of expansion. 
  -- Jim, Orlando, Fla.

A lot of people think that expansion is to blame, but I disagree on multiple levels. First of all, the league has expanded less than the pool of players has grown. The NBA added seven new teams since the '80s, going from 23 teams to 30 this year. That's a 23 percent increase. In that time, the population of the U.S. has expanded from 236 million in 1984 to 294 million in 2004, a 25 percent increase. In addition, the pool of foreign-born players in the league has grown from virtually zero 20 years ago to one in five today. Taking that into account, the number of positions available for American players has actually decreased since then. So, if anything, it's the players from the mid-'80s who would have trouble making rosters today.

Second, let's suppose for a minute that somehow expansion had watered down the game. Why would it hurt offense more than defense? Following the same argument, college basketball scores should be much lower because of all the players who turned pro instead of playing for four years, but we haven't seen that.

I totally agree with you assesment of the reasons for declining scoring and would like to add another. With so many players spending less time in college working on their skills, there seems to be fewer players who can post up or make a medium-range jumper. Do you agree? 
  -- Rene Asma, Leiden, the Netherlands

Actually, I think if you look at the European players, you could argue that going to college is about the worst thing an American can do for his game. This will drive Billy Packer insane, but the players who have turned pro out of high school have tended to develop much more rapidly than the college kids. The biggest problem facing American players appears before they ever get to college. The AAU clubs and various other "teams" they play tournaments with teach them nothing, while the European players are being schooled by youth teams on competitive clubs. That's where the development of American players is falling short.