How would you divide up and describe the various eras, starting from the 80s (when basketball really became repopularized), down to today? Say you are educating someone who has very little knowledge of the NBA and its history.
1979-1990: Rebirth & Rivalries
It began with the arrival of two already big rivals: Magic Johnson and Larry Bird - among the greatest individual athlete rivalries in NBA and even sports history. Lots of other fierce rivalries, and/or teams meeting each other in the finals multiple times.
Houston/Boston, Philly/LA, Detroit/Chicago, LA/Detroit to name a few.
Oh, and of course the big one: Boston vs. LA
There was also the star-studded 1984 draft, arguably the best draft of all time, containing HOFers such as Jordan, Olajuwon, Stockton, and Barkley. Commonly viewed as the most memorable era in basketball history, and probably the most important era, as basketball was reborn. It was fun to watch as teams scored lots of points and it was very high paced.
1990-1998: Jordan Dominates, Strategy Evolves
This one is obvious. These years were flat out dominated by Michael Jordan. He either won championships, or his retirement was talked about as the reason the Rockets won any championships. A very appealing era to youths, as people loved Michael. Be like Mike.
And there were plenty of other memorable moments (Bulls/Pacers rivalry, Knicks/Heat rivalry to name a couple) and dominant players such as Barkley, Malone/Stockton, Ewing, Mourning, Reggie, Olajuwon, Robinson, Payton, Kemp, etc...
This is also an era where basketball began to change from a run-and-gun, fast-break based league, to being more defensively oriented, focused on ball control and more precise, controlled offenses. Pick and roll really became the bread-and-butter of the NBA, especially with the way Stockton and Malone were able to dominate with it. Basketball strategy evolved heavily through the beginning and end of this era.
1998-2004: Ass (and MJ wannabes)
The league overall sucked ass during these years. First, the short lockout year. Then Kobe and Shaq dominating a generally weak NBA. Shooting percentages as a whole were incredibly low, offensive efficiency was incredibly low, and the overall talent level was simply low. The lack of talent is a big reason why basically there was only one team with two true stars (the Lakers), and why they dominated like they did. A lot of previously dominant players began to rapidly lose their dominance over the league, as most of them had aged quite a bit by this point, or dealt with a number of injuries.
What I remember most about these years was people constantly looking for "the new MJ", whether it was Kobe, T-Mac, Vince, Grant Hill, etc... but Kobe was the only one who could remotely compare.
The 2003-2004 was perhaps the worst year of basketball that the NBA had seen in a loooong time. But there was a bright spot to that season... the 2003 NBA draft, which could rival the 1984 draft as being the finest draft in NBA history...
2004-Current: Infusion of Talent
The 2004-2005 season marked the start of a new era of great talent and athletes. Many stars who will either be remembered as greats, and very possible future HOFs began to really dominate the NBA in this season (Lebron, Wade, Carmello, Amare, Nash, Dirk, Yao, Arenas, Ginobili), along with players who were already established as dominant (Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, T-Mac, Iverson).
There were big story lines such as the Malice at the Palace, Shaq being traded to the Heat, and the ongoing Kobe rape-trial issue. Some of these story lines may not have put the NBA in the best light, but it most definitely brought a lot of attention to the league. It made for a memorable season to begin a new era that has blossomed with incredible talent over the years, including players such as CP3, D-Will, Durant, Rose, Bosh, Gasol, Howard, Griffin, Love, Rondo, to combine with now established stars like Lebron, Wade, Dirk, Amare and Melo.
I'm hard pressed to think that a new era has possibly began with "the desicion", where elite players begin to take less money to join forces and make "superteams", but the book on this still has yet to be written...
not bad but west was still good inthe early 2000's ...
Sacramento TBH could of easily won a le if Webber had the cajones of Dirk.
People cry stern, donagy etc for 2002 but watching the games on DVD webber ed out when he was needed most. but that team was stacked ...
Sacramento and the Lakers was a tremendous rivalry back then. It was probably the only thing holding and pushing the league along with the Spurs because the Eastern Conference was an absolute hole. The battles between the Kings, Spurs and Lakers were really gangsta and for the most part produced really good games.
Watching those 80's games on NBA TV
Damn, great
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I am an early 90's fan because defense was the priority. Run-n-Gun bball is fun to watch, but as a former coach, I loved the X's and O's of 90's defense. Teams were allowed to be physical. Yes, the scores were low and some teams played ugly, but playing that way was the coach's choice (kinda like the NFL teams who prefer a punishing ground game vs a 3 or 4 wide passing attack).
I agree,
People ed at the 1994 Finals for being too defensive, but I loved it
Very intense, compe ive series
i have a lot of appreciation for the 90s as well. it was weaker talent-wise than the 80s or current era (by my book), but the way strategy evolved (especially defensively, starting in the late 80s with the bad boy Pistons), was for the better for true basketball. it turned it into even more of a chess match, as teams looked for more ways to put their stamp on a game, aside from just running and scoring, with occasional steals like in the 80s. Offenses in the 80s and prior just seemed like such a cluster and not particularly disciplined. Fortunately, athletes back then werent as good as they are today. There already were a ridiculous number of turnovers back then, can you imagine how many turnovers there would have been if you put guys like CP3, Lebron, Wade, JR Smith, and such back in those days? It would have been ridiculous.
I feel the 80s make basketball popular and fun to watch again, and the 90s refined it and made it more compe ive and strategic.
While it was really compe ive in the 90s, I don't think it's compe ive now outside of a few players. The NBA has basically turned into one huge group of friends. Even a guy as "compe ive" as Kobe is way more friendly with the other team than players in the 90s.
I agree. The league is incredibly talented now, but there aren't really any rivalries, although it seems like its slowly becoming the NBA vs. the Heat. Seemed like nearly every NBA player was writing stuff on their twitter on how happy they were the Mavs beat the Heat. Hard to say what will really happen though...
Now if Cleveland started to get good again, it could make for an interesting rivalry between Miami and Cleveland. Wouldn't be suprised to see things get heated between Miami and Chicago as well.
However in the West, there doesnt really seem to be any potential for a rivalry...
NBA has been metamorphosing towards a WWE style since 04 imho. league got rigged and the games today are just as fake as WWE, stern & his retinue be da director behind all these exhibitions. just call end to this fake show and join us s playin bball in da street, those sissy clowns who make millions of bucks annually
True, nowadays you constantly see players from different teams hanging out and being butt buddies. And players are so quick to jump ship and put on some new laundry, not that it didn't happen back then, but there was a bit more loyalty to a team and organization back then. I'm not saying NBA players didn't get along back then, Larry/Magic had a good relationship, but that really didn't develop into later in their careers. it's gotten too friendly today, and it's clearly obvious when you watch today's joke of All-Star games.
I blame NBA Cares. LOL!
I'll start during the 1970's, around the time of the NBA-ABA merger.
1975-79- The Era of Parity: No dominant teams after the decline of the Frazier-Monroe Knicks, Wilt-West Lakers and Kareem-Oscar Bucks. NBA Champions averaged 49 wins during this era. Warriors, Blazers, Bullets and Sonics all won their only les during this era.
1980-1988- Lakers-Celtics Revival: Boston and Los Angeles went to the Finals every season, combined for eight les in eight years and went head-to-head for the le three times. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were the dominant players in basketball during this era, although Michael Jordan began to make a big impact during the latter stages.
1989-1990- Bad Boys & New Western Powers: Detroit won back-to-back les in its mini-dynasty, while in the West Magic’s Lakers were supplanted by new teams that would make their mark in the following decade- Portland, Phoenix, San Antonio and Utah.
1991-1998- Running of the Bulls: Chicago’s six les-in-eight year dynasty. Yes, Houston also went back-to-back during this era. Sorry, Rocket Fan- your le teams will always lie in the shadow of the Bulls dynasty. You had great teams and their ’95 playoff run is maybe the most impressive ever- you can be satisfied with that.
1999-2007- West is the Best: Lakers and Spurs combined for seven les in nine years as the West completely dominated the East- with the notable exceptions of the Pistons in ’04 and Heat in ’06.
2008-2011- Superfriends: Boston’s 2008 le run inaugurated a new era as instant contenders vied for the crown.
I keep wondering what could have been if MJ hadn't decided to go play baseball for a while. Rockets-Bulls finals would have been freaking epic.
Bulls take the 94 chip, but i think the Rockets would've beaten them in 1995.
All good, except, I'd change 1999-2007's name to the Shaq & Duncan Era.
Either Shaq or Duncan played in the Finals every season during that 9 year run. Duncan in '99, '03, '05, and '07. And Shaq in '00, '01, '02, '04, and '06. We could've been saying Shaq and Duncan won ALL the les during that 9 year span if Kobe hadn't turned into Ko-ME in the '04 Finals and ed it all up for Shaq...
Jordan never had to go through Olajuwon, who is widely considered the second best player of the era, or Robinson, who, advanced stats wise, was the second best player of the era. It doesn't diminish his legacy, but it is worth nothing.
I suspect the Rockets would have won one of the series (probably '95), mainly because the level Olajuwon was playing at at the time was superior to the level anyone from that era had played at, save for Jordan himself. The notion that he "destroyed Robinson" is overblown, but he did handily outplay a guy who was in the midst of one of the great statistical seasons of all time.
I'm convinced the Spurs would have won in '99. The Bulls were running on fumes in '98. Not only should the Jazz have beaten them, but the Pacers actually should have beat them before that. For the Bulls to be another year older and to have to go through two top five players and a team better than any they had faced in the Finals, probably would have been asking too much.
Had Jordan played, the season records would be different for most teams in the league, and thus the WC matchups could have been different. The Rockettes may not have seen the Finals.
Rockets flat out destroyed the Bulls in 92-93
In fact, they matched up very well with the Bulls
Maxwell, for some reason, always played well vs Jordan
Horry was a long and athletic SF
Thorpe matched up well vs Grant
Smith was a bit better than armstrong
The only real difference was the C position, and Hakeem ted on Bill and Will
And if it wasnt for a very suspect call at the end of game 7 of the Rox-Sonics series...
I agree...not much difference between Vernon Maxwell and Michael Jordan in my book.
No, but he did have to go through Patrick Ewing and Shaquille O'Neal (and Brad Daugherty when he was playing at a high level.) Those guys weren't at Olajuwon's level but they were still very good, and except for the '95 ECSF MJ's Bulls beat them every time.
IMO when you're talking about a hypothetical Bulls-Rockets Finals it's not about how Hakeem would have done. He would have gotten his. It comes down to how Houston's guards would have handled Chicago's perimeter defense, which was off the charts. The Bulls had several series where they were outmatched at the center position, and they won those series by destroying the opposition's backcourt.
Ewing wasn't in Olajuwon's or Robinson's league, particularly the level Olajuwon was playing at in the '94 and '95 playoffs. O'Neal, through he was an elite player early in his career, wasn't yet at his peak. Even then, he was arguably better than anyone Jordan faced in the Finals and what happened? The Magic beat the Bulls in '95. Yes, Jordan hadn't played in the NBA in a year and a half and wasn't in great basketball shape, but still.
To an extent, it is about what Olajuwon would have done, because Jordan never faced someone as close to an equal in the Finals. If an all time great defender like Robinson couldn't slow him down, then the likes of Longley, Purdue and Wennington, didn't stand a chance.
The Rockets back court was good enough to give them a chance. In '94, they had Elie, a tough, hard nosed defender and in '95, they had Drexler, the second best SG of the era, to throw at Jordan.
Exactly
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
