Reply With Quote
I generally agree, although I sometimes wonder if the improvements in a different area of technology (i.e., high-def TV) makes the game seem faster and crisper today.
Athleticism and technology seriously went way up last 20 years. Players are simply bigger/stronger/faster. This is coming from someone who started watching in the 90's.
I was watching Magic/Bird on NBA classic and honestly these guys would get smoked by Heat/Spurs of today. The athleticism difference is staggering, the current generation is so much more muscular and these old teams looked like they were playing in slow motion. With the huge jump in technology, scouting and advanced analytic, strategy and tactics are simply a lot better than before as well.
The good old days, everyone stood around and watched dominant post players go 1v1. 20 years later, spacing is premium and small ball usually beats big ball. Offense and defense has a lot more motion than ever before. Sure, defense was dirty back in the days, but defensive rotation was very poor.
Until recently I was convinced the 1999 or 2005 Spurs were the greatest Spurs teams of all time. But now? I think 2014 Spurs with 2014 Popovich has a real chance to beat either one of them with modern basketball vs dump-it-to-Duncan.
Last edited by hitmantb; 06-05-2014 at 07:14 PM.
I generally agree, although I sometimes wonder if the improvements in a different area of technology (i.e., high-def TV) makes the game seem faster and crisper today.
There were still freaks like Jordan and Kemp from that era, though. I agree, however, that today's NBA players would physically dominate their predecessors (in their respective primes) and that coaching well in today's league requires much more strategy than it did back then. Jordan had this line about only four current (at the time he said it) NBA players being able to play in his era (Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and Dirk). In reality, it's more than only the Dream Team could have really played above replacement level in this era.
I liken this to talk about Butkis being the best MLB in NFL history and would be so had he played in any era. He wouldn't have even been able to make a team had he play now.
It doesn't bother me at all because the NBA was more fun to watch back in the day. The league wasn't heavily catered to flashy players with only moderate skill who bulldoze to the basket and get FTAs all night.
Small ball only beats big ball now because of the way the NBA has been changing the rules and calling games. Imagine if any of the top 5 centers of the 90's were playing now with the rules not hamstringing them. Just copy and paste their stats. LeBron would not look so special anymore. Compare LeBron's stats now to Hakeem's or DRob's or Ewing's or Shaq's or Malone's or Barkley's or Jordan's. Yeah. The 90's had like 10 LeBron's.
Play doesn't always get better. It's been on a downswing for years and the league's been altering rules to hamstring defenses so players can score easier to help them out.
If you had given those players of yore the medical and training advances of today though...
Im tired of this sissy era where ¨Stars¨ gets calls for nothing dumbing the ing game down, OP is 12 years old.
It can be annoying, but probably less annoying than Reggie Miller and Barkley talking about championship experience...
Basketball was a physical game back then. Normal hard fouls would be called Flagrant 2's now. The modern "put your head down and drive, run into someone, pretend you were shooting and get free throws" would have never worked back then.
The current era is the weakest, based soley on the fact that the NBA has changed the rules to prop up the superstars.
Hand-checking, use of the forearm, shoulder, hip etc, no charge area.
All the rules that are aimed at tilting the advantage to the offensive player are what make today's players weaker than those in the past.
When players flopped it was because they had just had the crap knocked out of them. Blood was normal and OK unless it made the floor slick.
I'm not. 90s bball was way more compe ive and less sissy ball. And it had Jordan.
No flopping teams like the Clippers, either
No CP3
No manufactured "stars" like Durant who shoot 30 FTs a game
Better coaches (Don Nelson, Chuck Daly, Phil, Sloan, Riley, on and on)
, even the early 2000s era was less WWE (fixed) than this era. At least they didn't have only one good team in a whole conference, filled with hall of famers who didn't have the balls to lead their own teams to victory (besides Wade who did in 06).
Not me, wish we saw more old school players on tv instead of the same ones we always see... Was great to watch DRob and Gervin on First take.
(Stupid) thread closed.
Kermit Washington damn near killed Rudy Tomjanovich in a multi player brawl.
wing players and guards might be getting bigger-stronger-faster but the Center position, and even PF to a lesser extent, is a complete joke now IMO
if only DRob could have played in today's NBA...
People need to drop the toughness angle, in my opinion. That's the same thing NFL old-timers use to defend their era. Who cares if Butkis played on a broken leg or whatever? He still would have been trucked by current NFL running-backs.
90s basketball was the ugliest type of basketball you'll ever see, tbh..the only reason it was hyped up was due to Dad Killer, obviously..
The expansion era of basketball was no different than the ugly, Spurs-Pistons basketball that the media hated, the only difference was that the media and casual fans were less interested in the Spurs and Pistons than they were in the bigger name teams like the Bulls, tbh..
Even Lakers-Celtics in 2010 was one of the ugliest displays of basketball I have ever seen, embarrassing offensive style of play, but it was overshadowed by the logos on the jerseys..
It's funny, NBA fans claim to dislike selfish, isolation basketball, yet the 90s and 2000s were full of 1-on-1 basketball that requires much less skill and strategy..in fact, this past NBA season had the least isolation-oriented offenses since the 80s, statistically speaking..
Sure, you can dislike the "softness" of today's game, but today's game requires much more skill and strategy than ever..ball movement and systems are much more important in today's game, tbh..
The 80s and 90s had a lot of goon players that would have no chance to make it to the league if they were required to play with the same skill, strategy and ball movement of today's league, rather than just committing hard fouls and being tall like they did in their own era..
You mention athleticism and muscles but don't mention skill?Using your logic an old team like the Spurs shouldn't even be compe ive against the likes of OKC or Miami. A slow, 37 year old geriatric in Duncan should never be able to score with athletic human shot eraser Serge Ibaka guarding him.
The good old days had the best of both worlds actually....good perimeter players and dominant post players like Shaq/Penny, Drexler/Olajuwon, Tim Hardaway/Mourning, Stockton/Malone, Payton/Kemp, etc. Even wing players back then were damn good post players.The good old days, everyone stood around and watched dominant post players go 1v1.
That's not saying much. Have you seen the crop of big men in the NBA today? When there are no likes of Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning or Malone small ball is going to look a of a lot better. Who do you think Lebron and the Heat would rather face in the playoffs? A Pacer team with Shaq, Ewing or Mourning in the East or a Pacer team with Roy Hibbert20 years later, spacing is premium and small ball usually beats big ball.
How do you quantify this?Offense and defense has a lot more motion than ever before.
Again, how do you quantify this? There will always be poor defensive teams in every era.Sure, defense was dirty back in the days, but defensive rotation was very poor.
What makes you think those old Spurs teams were simply dump it to Duncan? The 2005 Spurs team was perfection. They could run you out of the building with young Parker and Ginobili or slow it down and play the inside game with Prime Duncan. They had shooters galore (Ginobili, Horry, Barry, Bowen) to space the floor for Duncan to operate in the post and also open up driving lanes for Ginobili and Parker in the half court. Their defense was always good, if not great with Duncan as their anchor in the paint along with help from Nazr Mohammed and their perimeter shut down guy in Bruce Bowen. You narrowing that team down to simply "dump-it-to-Duncan" is just ignorant.Until recently I was convinced the 1999 or 2005 Spurs were the greatest Spurs teams of all time. But now? I think 2014 Spurs with 2014 Popovich has a real chance to beat either one of them with modern basketball vs dump-it-to-Duncan.
I'm pretty sure that just undercuts your opinion on the matter. If more-limited players like Ewing put up stats like Lebron does now, it suggests the game was easier back then, not that those players were better. In reality, they were just two different eras, neither one being "softer" or "easier" to play in. They just had different foci. The old NBA catered to bigs, and as time went on, it's moved more toward a perimeter game. What isn't all that debatable, however, is that the players have gotten a lot stronger and faster than they were before, and that coaching has had to get smarter to balance it all out.
That doesn't make the old era less legitimate than the current era, or that it wasn't as fun to watch or whatever. But it does refute the idea that some former players have that current NBAers wouldn't dominate if they went back in a time machine. A player like Lebron James would have been a mix between the GOAT PG (Magic) and the then-GOAT PF (Malone). That doesn't even account for the fact that he can score like Jordan could and defend like Pippen could. Those legends should be glad they never had to see him in their era.
When Noah is in the so called best five of the year then you cant really talk about older eras...
LOL at this whole concept, and just no. There are so many RULES now that NEGATE any type of defense that is played you cannot comment on who is more "athletic". Today's game is dominated by scoring points and trying to be flashy while you do it. The fans want it, so the NBA CATERS TO THAT. Do you really think a like Westbrook would get half the points he does at the FT line..? Durant would be done for. Any hand check on him and his brittle 120 pound frame would crumble. AI in his prime would be 30 times the player Westbrook is now, and could you imagine Jordan? Roy Hibbert? Dwight Howard? Those guys are the biggest in this soft league and cannot dominate. Can you imagine Howard against Shaq or Wilt? Jesus. What a stupid, stupid, stupid comment.
The players may look better due to advertisements and makeup, but seriously, steph curry getting defended by gary payton... just no.
No it doesn't, and it would only appear that way if you massively underrate the 90's and Ewing. Ewing was better than every big man today is now. He is not "limited" because he can't break ankles and average 7 assists. LeBron can't defend like Ewing or rebound like him. Their ability to put up points efficiently is similar too.
I don't think players have gotten "stronger" either; that isn't accurate. Faster, yes, stronger, no. The NBA is full of ectomorphs now like Durant. You can point to specific players like LeBron and Westbrook, but you have to look at Durant, Lee, Lin, etc. They have weak, skinny bodies. Half the leagues stars now seem to have only slightly above average male strength. NBA is stronger though? Lmao. . .I don't think so. It's smaller and weaker but faster and more protected by refs.
Yes LeBron would have been good anyway. The best player in the league should be good in any area. That point doesn't mean anything. Mix between Magic and Malone but can't compete with either at what they did. Can't pass like Magic, can't rebound and score in the post like Malone. In fact he's nothing like Malone.
I doubt they'd care about playing LeBron either. Dude would have never made the Finals in THAT east which actually had legit teams in it. Jordan's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks, Reggie's Pacers, or going back to the early 90's Isiah's Pistons. Unless LeBron could bring Wade and Bosh back in time with him, he's just another stat stuffer that couldn't win a le (Malone, Ewing, DRob pre-Duncan, Hakeem pre-Jordan retirement, etc).
Disagree. There's nobody near the caliber of Magic/Jabbar in today's league. Magic was 6-9 ffs, and he was a f'n point guard. Jabbar would crush Duncan. James Worthy vs the likes of Danny Green and Leonard? Laughable.
Showtime Lakers would crush today's Spurs or Heat. Showtime Lakers were the best basketball team ever, IMO.
Yes, it does. Saying that a many 80s players put up the numbers only James can put up now undercuts your point that the 80s had better players. Your counter is baseless, no offense, because it is subjective as . Think about it this way: There are d-league players who average NBA superstar stats. Does that support the idea that the d-league is better, or does it undercut it? What about college players? A lot of them put up great numbers as well only to crash back to Earth in the big league. This line of reasoning is NOT intended by me to assert the league 20-30 years ago was worse than it is now. (I said that already.) It's simply to counter your logic of using relative dominance to imply absolute dominance.
Durant can't be your only counter, can he?I don't think players have gotten "stronger" either; that isn't accurate. Faster, yes, stronger, no. The NBA is full of ectomorphs now like Durant. You can point to specific players like LeBron and Westbrook, but you have to look at Durant, Lee, Lin, etc. They have weak, skinny bodies. Half the leagues stars now seem to have only slightly above average male strength. NBA is stronger though? Lmao. . .I don't think so. It's smaller and weaker but faster and more protected by refs.
I am not saying he has the exact games as those guys. But he can do what they did at an elite level while also being versatile. He's easily a better overall player than either were.Yes LeBron would have been good anyway. The best player in the league should be good in any area. That point doesn't mean anything. Mix between Magic and Malone but can't compete with either at what they did. Can't pass like Magic, can't rebound and score in the post like Malone. In fact he's nothing like Malone.
I doubt they'd care about playing LeBron either. Dude would have never made the Finals in THAT east which actually had legit teams in it. Jordan's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks, Reggie's Pacers, or going back to the early 90's Isiah's Pistons. Unless LeBron could bring Wade and Bosh back in time with him, he's just another stat stuffer that couldn't win a le (Malone, Ewing, DRob pre-Duncan, Hakeem pre-Jordan retirement, etc).
As far as how many les he'd get, it'd obviously depend on where he went. Had the Spurs drafted him instead of Elliott in 1989, for example, I'm pretty sure the Spurs get multiple les.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
