Today vs. Yesterday

[3Ballin]

2 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Are you talking about 1 point free throws?

Yes, yes I am.  I forgot the coffee emoji tho. 

[jblaz13]

The older offenses flowed  more, because the mid range jump shot adds another layer to both enfds of the floor, and also rebounding and transition. The ball  is always  more dangerous in  the middle. When the ball stays on the perimeter it can only be shot or driven towards the basket. When the ball is going into the post it can either be scored or kicked out, but it makes it harder to guard the shorter passing lanes that create havoc when the mid range is forcing the opponent to remove defenders from either the  perimeter  or the post. I  I would say this since I use the  crap out of my Knights in chess. lol 

[jblaz13]

Game time! 

[ButlerHoosier]

So since you have covered other major points the one point I think that has changed everything is social media and the internet. 

[Guest]

Two point shooting =fundamentals

Free throw shooting = fundamentals

Blocking out vs jumping over people = fundamentals

AAU basketball = lack of fundamentals

[rico]

29 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Two point shooting =fundamentals

Free throw shooting = fundamentals

Blocking out vs jumping over people = fundamentals

AAU basketball = lack of fundamentals

Yep, the game has changed.  These young guys can say what they want to, but the game was better in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.  Jmo.

[StLHoosier]

2 hours ago, rico said:

Yep, the game has changed.  These young guys can say what they want to, but the game was better in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.  Jmo.

I’m fairly young (31) and share in your sentiment.  Although I vaguely remember the late 80’s, the early 90’s basketball was way better than what it is today.  There’s a reason that over half of the NBA teams are losing money.  The product on the court just isn’t worth showing up for or watching.  There are a few teams that are fun to watch, but most of them are not.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

1 minute ago, StLHoosier said:

I’m fairly young (31) and share in your sentiment.  Although I vaguely remember the late 80’s, the early 90’s basketball was way better than what it is today.  There’s a reason that over half of the NBA teams are losing money.  The product on the court just isn’t worth showing up for or watching.  There are a few teams that are fun to watch, but most of them are not.

http://adage.com/article/media/nba-ratings/311486/

[5fouls]

One way the game is definitely better today than it was in the late 80's and early 90's is that I'm not watching it with ex#2.  

[StLHoosier]

8 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

http://adage.com/article/media/nba-ratings/311486/

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what

[StLHoosier]

9 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

http://adage.com/article/media/nba-ratings/311486/

I was talking about actual revenue not viewership.  Plus, ESPN has nowhere to go but up in terms of viewership.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

19 minutes ago, StLHoosier said:

I was talking about actual revenue not viewership.  Plus, ESPN has nowhere to go but up in terms of viewership.

All sports have issues with attendance now with the proliferation of TV and the internet. The NBA product is doing very well right now. 

[rico]

1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

All sports have issues with attendance now with the proliferation of TV and the internet. The NBA product is doing very well right now. 

But the product isn't the same as it was in 80's and 90's.

[StLHoosier]

20 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

All sports have issues with attendance now with the proliferation of TV and the internet. The NBA product is doing very well right now. 

I have to disagree.  If half of your league is losing money, and a third still loses money even after profit sharing, I don’t think it’s as good of a product as some people would believe.  People typically put their money towards something they think will benefit them, whether it be personal enjoyment, investment or anything else.  Before the protesting, the NFL didn’t really have issues with attendance (barring some teams like the Browns), and they’re filling up stadiums in the 70-100k range.  Basketball arenas are only about 15-20k.  If it was a good product, people would go, regardless of the internet or social media outlets.  This is just my opinion.

[KoB2011]

33 minutes ago, StLHoosier said:

I have to disagree.  If half of your league is losing money, and a third still loses money even after profit sharing, I don’t think it’s as good of a product as some people would believe.  People typically put their money towards something they think will benefit them, whether it be personal enjoyment, investment or anything else.  Before the protesting, the NFL didn’t really have issues with attendance (barring some teams like the Browns), and they’re filling up stadiums in the 70-100k range.  Basketball arenas are only about 15-20k.  If it was a good product, people would go, regardless of the internet or social media outlets.  This is just my opinion.

We could have a very interesting discussion about what causes businesses to lose money and rather that's the best way to measure the success of an NBA team. They are ALL worth a lot more money than any other paid for them so from an investment standpoint they're doing quite well. 

As interesting as that conversation may be, it doesn't prove anything about the quality of the game now versus then. 

[KoB2011]

Lots of the points in this thread seem to be about personal preference. It's gonna nature to like what we grew up with, but nostalgia alone doesn't make something better. We can knock analytics so we want, but they work. Numbers don't lie. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

Good discussion and great idea for a topic. 

I can't argue with the metrics behind emphasizing the 3 over the long 2 (there's nothing wrong with the short 2 and layups and they are equally important). 

However, the lost art in the game to me is the bank shot. Duncan was basically the only recent player to shoot it consistently, and it was flat out money, all the time. The bank shot is a great shot, including from a metrics/math standpoint, but players don't develop it. Duncan was the Big Fundamental, for a reason. 

[5fouls]

9 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Good discussion and great idea for a topic. 

I can't argue with the metrics behind emphasizing the 3 over the long 2 (there's nothing wrong with the short 2 and layups and they are equally important). 

However, the lost art in the game to me is the bank shot. Duncan was basically the only recent player to shoot it consistently, and it was flat out money, all the time. The bank shot is a great shot, including from a metrics/math standpoint, but players don't develop it. Duncan was the Big Fundamental, for a reason. 

I have not officially tracked her percentages, but I would venture to say my 11 year old daughter shoots 20%-30% better when she uses the glass on her shot.  She used to use it on the majority of her shots.  Recently, though, it seems she is getting away from it a little bit, and, sure enough, she's in somewhat of a slump.

[rico]

I went over to Dad's house y-day to watch the ballgame with him and I asked him how the game has changed since he played.  BTW, Pop was a 3 year letterman for the Pierceton Cubs and graduated in 1958.  But anyway he said the first thing he noticed when I played HS ball was how much bigger we were compared to his teams.  Basically he said that guys today are bigger, faster, and stronger.  However he did allude to the lack of fundamentals and basketball IQ in today's game.  Just what a 77 year-old man's thoughts are.

[HoosierFaithful]

It utterly baffles me how people can say the "good ole days" players were better.

At least on the professional level, we're in a golden era of talent.  I'm not saying it's the best ever but -- dang -- it's gotta be close.  Watch Steph Curry for 3 or 4 games in a row.  The man is unreal.

The game grows and evolves.  The 3 point shot and its proliferation is the byproduct of players becoming so good at shooting that somehow a shot farther away is still a more efficient shot.  

 

[rico]

19 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

It utterly baffles me how people can say the "good ole days" players were better.

At least on the professional level, we're in a golden era of talent.  I'm not saying it's the best ever but -- dang -- it's gotta be close.  Watch Steph Curry for 3 or 4 games in a row.  The man is unreal.

The game grows and evolves.  The 3 point shot and its proliferation is the byproduct of players becoming so good at shooting that somehow a shot farther away is still a more efficient shot.  

 

I don't think anybody said the players were better.  And to me it is moot because you can never compare players from past generations to the players of today.  In any sport, the rules were different in yesteryear.  Take your pick.  All the sports have evolved.  But that doesn't mean they are better today than they were yesterday.  The people playing them are bigger, stronger, and faster.

[KoB2011]

16 minutes ago, rico said:

I don't think anybody said the players were better.  And to me it is moot because you can never compare players from past generations to the players of today.  In any sport, the rules were different in yesteryear.  Take your pick.  All the sports have evolved.  But that doesn't mean they are better today than they were yesterday.  The people playing them are bigger, stronger, and faster.

Bigger, stronger, faster, can shoot better from farther and jump higher, but certainly not better at the game of basketball where all those traits matter. 

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, HoosierFaithful said:

It utterly baffles me how people can say the "good ole days" players were better.

At least on the professional level, we're in a golden era of talent.  I'm not saying it's the best ever but -- dang -- it's gotta be close.  Watch Steph Curry for 3 or 4 games in a row.  The man is unreal.

The game grows and evolves.  The 3 point shot and its proliferation is the byproduct of players becoming so good at shooting that somehow a shot farther away is still a more efficient shot.  

 

Yeah players like Magic, Bird, MJ, Dr J, Kareem, Ewing, Olguwaun, Barkley, Malone, Stockton and I could go on for a long time were stiffs compared to today's players.  Also everyone acts like guys back then were not athletic but I am pretty sure players like MJ, Dr. J, Larry Nance, Wilkens would disagree with you. Probably one of the best and most athletic players of all time is Wilt Chamberlin but he would just be a journey man in today's basketball.

[HoosierFaithful]

That's nonsense.  I never said any of that -- there are better ways to make an argument than putting words in my mouth.  We're playing in an era with the arguable GOAT (LBJ), the arguable best shooter ever (Steph), the arguable Magic 2.0 (Giannis) and that's just scratching the surface.

[IU Scott]

4 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

That's nonsense.  I never said any of that -- there are better ways to make an argument than putting words in my mouth.  We're playing in an era with the arguable GOAT (LBJ), the arguable best shooter ever (Steph), the arguable Magic 2.0 (Giannis) and that's just scratching the surface.

There are great players today but to me the depth of great players today is thin compared to the past.