Reply With Quote
Well he's right.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporti...e-four-pointer
“It’s funny how the game has changed,” Bird continued. “And my thinking about it. I was really worried—back sixteen, seventeen years ago—that the little guy didn’t have a spot in the N.B.A. anymore: it was just going to be the big guards like Magic Johnson. But then players started shooting more threes and spacing the court, and everyone wants small guards now. Watching these kids play now, I’m like everybody else: Wow, man. They can really shoot! They have more freedom to get to the basket. The ball moves a little better. These kids are shooting from farther, with more accuracy. Now some teams shoot up around thirty threes a game. My era, you always think that’s the greatest era. But I’m not so sure anymore.”
Well he's right.
Speak for yourself, Larry...I never thought that.My era, you always think that’s the greatest era.
Bird always keeps it 100.
He shows respect to the real G's like the retired one ...
The problem with era comparison is that most people (including present and former players) use only the best teams of each era to make the comparison. "80s" guys scream how it was the Golden Era because of the Lakers and Celtics while dismissing the countless average to ty teams pervasive in the league at the time.
And the notion now that the three point shot and players getting better from shooting further away makes the game better, well if you use examples like Golden State and San Antonio, sure. But teams like Houston and Philadelphia chucked up a whole bunch of three pointers and that was still ugly basketball. There were 12 teams that averaged at least 25 three point attempts a game in the regular season. Only half of them shot 35% or better from that distance. Only Golden State shot over 40%. Only Golden State and Portland shot over 37%. So while the three point shot can be used to create more floor spacing and better ball movement, it still requires multiple good shooters to make it effective and "beautiful." Otherwise, it looks a lot like a girl's high school game with the occasional slam dunk.
I don't know if the present era is better than any other. It's always a discussion that will never have a winning side. Who knows really? Is the Golden Era of the 1980s overrated? Yeah, most likely. Is the current era the best basketball ever? Eh, likely not. It will always bring out people arguing for one side or another and it will always end in a standstill where neither side convinces the other.
Not disagreeing with your whole post but there are far more average to ty teams in the NBA today. While Lakers and Celtics seemed to dominate the Finals, there were some damn good teams spread throughout the league. Way more diluted today. IMO.
In Larry's day no one watched the ty teams. There weren't 50 NBA channels. There was one or two channels with games. If you took those teams and played those games today no one would watch anything other than Michael, Magic and Larry. Problem is that guys today who never saw those games back then (or did see them and are revisionists mentally) take the entire NBA and condense it into the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls.
Imagine the only televised games now are top 6 teams in the league. It would appear to be a league far and above anything offered 30 years ago.
Exactly. You can take those 80's Spurs ...with Gervin/Gilmore/Alvin roberston era and they would absolutely destroy almost every team in this Eastern Conference playoffs and probably half the West. You put David robinson in his prime right now in the OKC/GSW series even with the new rules and he is destroying Adams/Kanter/Bogut/Fezeli on both ends and that was a largely disappointing Spurs team with a mediocre supporting cast.
In the 80's it wasnt just about lakers/Celtics
It was that decade contained by 1988 all of these players at or near their prime or just drafted:
Bird, Magic, Nique, Jordan, Malone, Malone, Mullin, Drexler, Isiah, dumars McHale, Worthy, ewing, Hakem, Regggie Miller, Stockton, Barkley, Pippen.
It's just tough to find a better apex of great talent in the NBA then that summer. Go to early in the 80's you miss Jordan. Go to late Bird and Magic are less useful. 87-88. you had those guys along Chambers, Ellis, aguirre, Ro Blackmon, Parish.
Just a truly great decade.
Is it better than now?
No, I agree modern players are better ballhandlers and overall better athletes
But i challege anyone here to find a better confluence of talent than the late 80's.
The western conference was garbage outside of the Lakers in the entire decade of the 80s.
Karl Malone never won . He has longevity. Even with Stockton as his PG he never won a ring and is noted for ting the bed in the playoffs. Ewing was overrated, never won . Reggie Miller, great 3pt shooter, never won . Barkley, basically Zach Randoph with more hops, never won . Dominique, leaper, ball hog, black hole on offense, never won . Drexler, great leaper, player, pretty decent but never won until he went to Houston and took a lesser role. Chris Bosh in the early to mid 90's would be considered an all time great today. James Worthy had Magic and Kareem. Good player, didn't make first ballot.
Let's not pretend the lack of better players then means the good ones were better than the good ones today. There were some then who were all time greats, but the rest are just best players on their respective teams.
You gotta be kidding me. You can get away with that on another board, but on a Spurs board where people actually watched those teams? They had one decent year with Gervin and Gilmore together in 1983 and then Ice got heavy into coke, the team became garbage, and the Spurs had to draft Robertson to replace Gervin. The Spurs were never a good team at any point when Robertson was on the roster, it was lots of mid 30s win teams in a laughably bad conference.
It wasn't as strong as the East for sure. But there were decent teams in the West. It's just that the Lakers were that stacked.
Basically, muphuckas couldn't name you who the Lakers played in the WCF when they were cakewalking to the Finals like LeBron.
It was essentially, Sixers/Celtics/Lakers before the Pistons came along in the late 80s to overtake the Sixers.
There was the Lakers. Everyone else was . Some rose above other .
Get'em BB. Don't let that soda cracker rewrite history to suit his Nickelodeon level view of NBA history.
You are talking about talent not the teams.
Let's just look at the 2011-12 season: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E...#By_conference
The 8th seed in either conference was at least 4 games above .500
There was so little talent in the west in the 1980s. Outside of the Lakers there was no one in the conference even as good as the Wilkins/Rivers/Willis/Rollins Hawks, much less anyone who could touch the Bucks teams with Moncrief and mings or the stacked Sixers and Pistons teams. Alex English's Nuggets? Walter Davis' Suns? Moses was a beast in Houston, as was Olajuwon, but talk about some supporting casts around them (Sampson was such a bust). In the very early 80s the Spurs were decent, but never again le contenders after losing in the ECF to Washington. The Blazers at the tail end of the decade were the first real contenders to the Lakers to emerge.
Ok so the 83 team is the one I am speaking of who in the current EC is beating that team? outside of the cavs? I also remember a few of the Robertson teams giving the Showtime Lakers the business. Maybe they only played us tough but for some reason when we used to make those trips to texas and even though the Rox and Mavs wre both better we would lose a lot of those games to SA (but would often beat Rox/Mavs) or they would be much closer than they should have been.
But you are right I only watched those teams when the played us or the Clips ...
As DMC said we had no LP and the Spurs werent on National TV.
So maybe It was not true for teh decade but I think that 83 team that played the Lakers in the 2nd round is better than the Heat,Pacers etc. But I could be wrong you are the Spur fan.
Admiral led the league in scoring & couldn't dominate Felton Spencer in the playoffs:(41%)
Sonics had some good late 80's teams too ...
And so did the Jazz
But I do agree that the east was better: Hawks, bucks, sixers celts Pistons Knicks
my original point was to counter the post saying that the NBA was full of teams. Which it wasn't. You've named off a few decent teams in the West. And there were several very strong teams in the East. So compared to today, I don't think it was worse overall. Today there's one strong team in the East and a few in the west.
A uptempo series that features Kanter/Green/Ibaka playing center for extended minutes would be a easy work for David.Admiral led the league in scoring & couldn't dominate Felton Spencer in the playoffs:
Take those 18 players in 1988.
Compare to these 18 players in 2004, all at or near their prime or just drafted:
Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Pau, JO, Kobe, LeBron, AI, Nash, T-Mac, Vince, Kidd, Pierce, Wade, Melo, Ray Allen, Peja
I'd be more than happy to take the odds on the top talent of 2004 NBA over 1988 NBA. I mean, I'm not saying either is bad or one group is much better than the other. But it's not like the late 80s is the only era to have a lot of top end talent.
Ever since the 80s, talent has never been in deficiency in the NBA. It's been the proliferation of Michael Jordan one-on-one wannabes, the de-emphasis and near dissolution of the big man, and lack of team fundamental play. It's the AAU / and-one style that has hurt the game, not the lack of talent.
Adams would have had his soft ass on all 4s.
Still leaning 88 Even if we stick with just the guys we named ... that is a very strong year 2004 and it has some of my all time favorite players ... even if both lists are full of HOF'ers
I think the 80's list is higher up in general on a all-time rank list.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
