Reply With Quote
True, but did the league average improve from 1980 to now? I think it has.
Not necessarily, but it's more likely to be than the 80s.Is the current era the best basketball ever? Eh, likely not.
Disagree.Adams would have had his soft ass on all 4s.(OKC's bigs killed the Spurs in halfcourt sets not transition)
Robinson had his faults.
But the disrespect of his greatness is alarming even on a Spurs site ...
True, but did the league average improve from 1980 to now? I think it has.
Not necessarily, but it's more likely to be than the 80s.Is the current era the best basketball ever? Eh, likely not.
Robinson had some awful supporting casts once mings blew his knee out and Red McCombs let Strickland walk for nothing. It's too bad the Spurs didn't have an owner like Holt in the early 90s when the Spurs had built up a team of Robinson, mings, Elliott, Strickland, and Willie Anderson that should have contended for years. McCombs refused to pay to make the team compe ive though, that got even turned down a trade of Barkley when the Sixers were giving him away for pennies on the dollar and almost salary dumped Robinson to New York for Ewing (who would have obviously walked).
It's mere speculative opinion for either side of the argument. My point being that an argument CAN be made. There is always nostalgic romance with things of the past. My argument for the 2004 group would be simple. For hypothetical argument sake, if we assume the two groups of 1988 and 2004 as combined groups have similar skill and talent, whether one group has a little more or not, overall, the athleticism and length advantage surely weighs in significant favor of 2004. Guys like Larry Bird at SF and Charles Barkley CANNOT defend guys like LeBron at SF and Tim Duncan at PF. They simply cannot. I think similarly of guys like Chris Mullin and John Stockton defending their positions. And then you add to the fact that 2004 has not one, not two, but three guys that are completely unguardable in Shaquille, LeBron, and Iverson, the scales begin to tip.
All that said, I'm just pointing out that while the late 80s had a great deal of top end talent in the league at the time, they are NOT unmatched in league history.
The "Golden Era" of the 1980s might be justifiable in this regard. Magic and Bird brought the game to a new level in terms of interest. And because of Magic and Bird, and then subsequently because of Michael Jordan and the 1992 Dream Team, as the NBA and basketball became global, basketball started to get better athletes. Kids growing up in the 80s and early 90s who may have played baseball or football or may have run track and field started to become basketball players. That's what the Golden Era gave basketball more to the game rather than simply having the best talent in history.
Of course it has. In the last couple of decades, players started to focus more on three point shooting. More and more teams started to draft and develop three point shooting as it became more part of the game. More players and more teams began to shoot it more, and of course, players became better at shooting the three pointer. But even with shooting specialists now on every single team in the league, there are players and teams that shoot the three pointer too much. There are still teams that use the three pointer recklessly, take early shotclock, contested three pointers (that includes Golden State at times, although as well as they shoot it, bad shots sometimes become good shots particularly for guys like Curry and Thompson). But not every team has a Curry or Thompson. But when players think they are like Curry or Thompson, you have the three point shot hurting the game more than helping.
And Josh Smith, it can get ugly out there when that happens.
I love steven Adams ...
David would have to drop 5 levels to be in Adam's class.
Sure Adams is tough, a beast.
But dont let the Christian demeanor fool you ... Robinson was chiseled muscle.
and I dont remember lots of dudes punking him ...but I did not watch them a bunch.
We arguing different things. I would agree that the 2004 squad would beat the 1988 squad in a game because of the reasons you mentioned. My argument was that the 18 players I mentioned as a whole are greater or are considered greater players or accomplished more in the overall ranks of great players. Sure Barkley could not defend Lebron or duncan heck not sure he could defend many great players of any era tbh ... but chuck was a greater player than most of the guys you mentioned in 2004 ... Save the obvious ones you mentioned like Kobe, Shaq and maybe Dirk.
Fair enough. But that's the problem with these era comparisons. What measures exactly do you compare? Can you just go by statistics or championships or number of all star games or all NBA selections? All of those are skewed because each of them are accomplishments and awards in a vacuum that is their particular era. Barkley put up monster numbers over his career, even won an MVP. As much of a freak as he was, does he do it in the 2000s where the average power forward is 6'10 and not athletic stiffs some PFs in the 80s were? In today's NBA of freakish point guards, does John Stockton even play 10 minutes a game, much less have the HOF career he did? And subsequently, how would that affect how high they would rank in most people's perception of greatest players in the league. It's so hard to judge something like that.
So how are we comparing the greatness of each group of elite talent? That's the crux of the dilemma of comparing them at all. And that's why I ended up making some player comparisons in the process because at some point, you do inherently go to how would a player match up to another particular player or how great would a player be in another era. There is no exact AND fair quantifiable measure to compare the two. That's why no one wins these discussions.
I will just say that this started when I responded to your "challenge" to find an era with a better confluence of talent. While you may not agree, I think I provided a pretty strong example with which at least some, perhaps many would agree.
Last edited by JamStone; 05-20-2016 at 05:50 PM.
Admiral was to centers as to what Anthony Davis is currently to PFs. Most talented player but a face up, jump shooting .
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 05-20-2016 at 06:34 PM.
With emphasis on .Admiral was to center as to what Anthony Davis is currently to PFs. Most talented player but a face up, jump shooting .
lol he said today's NBA
That shut down your Forum, yes he did. What you did to AZ Central, he did to you.
Well, that just dropped this ostrich looking got out of the Top 20
Kobe 11
Tough to gauge who would agree when many here never saw these guys play. I wasnt the biggest stockton fan but to say he would not be able to play at all is probably disrespectful to him ...is steve nash a much better athlete? Is Steph? CP3? The only two PGs other than magic to win back2back mvps neither are known for great athleticism. I think the thing to keep in mind is great plyers the truly great players are the ones whi would find a way to be great in any era. Westbrook would bust his ass but even with his, recent improvements Russ cannot run a team like Stockton and there is still value in that in any era.
What kind of ing world is it when i am defending David freaking Robinson and John Stockton?! I hated both players.
Only @ Spurstalk ...smh
Skills and toughness were at their peak in the 80's. But today's player is stronger and more athletic. I disagree with Larry on the more accurate shooting from farther (and I'm not sure the numbers even show that either). I just think the refs are opening up more space by not allowing players to body one another like they did.
If Price played today with the softer officiating and new rules he would be averaging 45 ppg 18 apg and shoot 60 percent from 3 tbh
Chicken of the Sea.
Completely honest here, I don't think John Stockton would be a starting point guard in the league if he were drafted over the past 5 seasons. Now, part of it also depends on what team he was on, if they were a show like Philadelphia or the Lakers. Maybe he would start on one of those really bad teams for a while. Or maybe if he played for a team like Phoenix that doesn't give a about anyone playing defense.
But look at the rules now. Part of Stockton's ability to defend relied greatly on him bending the rules with clutching and grabbing and hand checking. Now, defenders can't even blow on a guy without getting a whistle. I can't imagine Stockton trying to stay in front of guys like Westbrook or John Wall without being able to hand check. Nowhere near quick enough. Not athletic enough. Too small.
On offense, his ridiculous assist numbers have a direct correlation to the pick-and-roll system Sloan employed. Could he find another NBA team now where he'd be as effective on offense? Maybe. But he'd still have to be able to get minutes. I'm not sure he does today. I think he's a back-up PG if he were playing now. And because of that, he wouldn't be on his way to a Hall of Fame career.
So I guess I just disagree with Stockton being one of those truly great players who would find a way to be great in any era. I think the same way of a guy like Bill Russell. Bill Russell in the 2000s would be a skinny PF version of Ben Wallace. I mean, still a great defender, but we wouldn't be talking about him being a top 25 player much less top 10. And I can't see Charles Barkley putting up a HoF career in the 2000s either. I just can't. Is he putting up 25 and 13 as a 6'4 PF in the 2000s? I say no way.
Oh and yes, I think Nash and CP3 are much better athletes than Stockton was. Curry might not be a great athlete, but his jumpshot and how lightning quick his release is, how deep his range is, and his ability to dribble and create space for his shot with his dribble make him a nightmare to defend in a way that maximizes the athleticism he does have because defenders have to play him so close. Stockton wasn't a stiff, but he'd have a tough time defending starting PGs now.
The Bucks were really good. They were a Don Nelson team though, so they were a regular season team like Lenny Wilkins' teams over the years. The Cavs also came on in the late 80's, though they quickly started becoming Jordan fodder. The Hawks were also present with 'Nique.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.
Stockton and Malone resembled inflatable windpuppets in their flopability back in the 90's.
I was talking about teams that were considered TRUE contenders. Bucks/Hawks were like last season's Grizzlies/Rockets. While the Cavs were the equivalent of the Pacers that kept losing in the ECF to the Heatles.
Please, the Bucks were legit. They also had the misfortune of facing one of the best teams in NBA history in 1986 in their best chance to make the Finals during that era. They won 59+ games twice and 49+ every year but once.
They had to change the rules to accommodate all these little guys.
Starting with Jordan
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions