Today vs. Yesterday

[KoB2011]

55 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

To answer your question, I think that it depends on what stage of player development we're talking about.

 I don't know what RICO was referring to when he started this thread, but since this is a college board, I'll go with that. However, this thread has skewed to the pro game, which I think is a different discussion.

 I think that kids coming into the college game are lacking in quite a few fundamentals. I firmly believe that the primary cause of this is AAU basketball and the emphasis on being seen and making a name win out over developing solid fundamentals.

Poor shooting, poor defensive positioning, footwork, basketball IQ, playing with leverage, court vision, IMO, it's rare to have a kid come in as a freshman with more than 1-2 of those skills. And because of the limitations on practice time, I believe that these kids take longer to develop these skills.

Once a kid is out of school and can concentrate solely on basketball, then I agree with those arguing that today's pros are by and large better players. I think that is definitely a factor on so many kids leaving school early if they have any chance to play professionally somewhere. And it's why the NBA draft is primarily based on potential, because they know these kids are far from finished products

I can accept this, but I was ask with reference to the pro game as that seems to be the direction the thread has gone. 

[rico]

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

You think the competition is more watered down today than in the 60's?  That's absurd.  

When talking the NBA, yes it is.  

[KoB2011]

15 minutes ago, rico said:

When talking the NBA, yes it is.  

The same team won the title almost every year in the NBA and in college during the 60s. There was less parity then the women's game has today. 

What possible evidence can you provide the game is more watered down today?

[rico]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

The same team won the title almost every year in the NBA and in college during the 60s. There was less parity then the women's game has today. 

What possible evidence can you provide the game is more watered down today?

More teams, the talent is more dispersed.  The NBA draft was different back then.  As far as college......the Tournament was a different as well.

[KoB2011]

3 minutes ago, rico said:

More teams, the talent is more dispersed.  The NBA draft was different back then.  As far as college......the Tournament was a different as well.

That not evidence  of anything. How does different mean the product was less watered down? 

The Celtics literally won 9 of 10 titles in the 60s, how can you are the talent was dispersed? 

The 2010s have had 6 champions in 8 years. Imperial (read: factually) the talent is spread out better than it's ever been. The likely explanation is because there is more talent to spread than there has ever been. 

[rico]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

That not evidence  of anything. 

The Celtics literally won 9 of 10 titles in the 60s, how can you are the talent was dispersed? 

The talent wasn't dispersed back then, it is now.

[KoB2011]

5 minutes ago, rico said:

The talent wasn't dispersed back then, it is now.

I see what you're saying. So how does that make the game better or stats more meaningful? West had worse numbers against worse competition thank Durant. 

[5fouls]

 

The Beatles

Yesterday

All my troubles seemed so far away

Now it looks as though they're here to stay

Oh, I believe in yesterday

 

or

 

The Smashing Pumpkins

Today is the greatest
Day I've ever known
Can't live for tomorrow
Tomorrow's much too long
I'll burn my eyes out
Before I get out

 

 

[rico]

10 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I see what you're saying. So how does that make the game better or stats more meaningful? West had worse numbers against worse competition thank Durant. 

No West had the numbers against better competition because there were fewer teams.  

[KoB2011]

3 minutes ago, rico said:

No West had the numbers against better competition because there were fewer teams.  

Then how come the same team won every year? Better competition leads to more parity, not less. 

I'm not questioning the Celtics greatness but that's one team and the Lakers were the other. Where was all this talent besides those two?

[BGleas]

As someone that has watched the NBA and been a huge fan since the early 80’s, I think the NBA has been as good as it’s ever been the last 7-8 years. The product on the court rivals the 80’s and is infinitely better than the 90’s. In their fondness of MJ, people forget that the NBA of the 90’s for the most part was isolation basketball. Walk the ball up the court, give it to the best player and have him back down until either a double team did or didn’t come. If it came you kick it out for a jumper, if it didn’t you shoot a fadeaway jumper  

It really wasn’t that great, but there was a ton of talent with Jordan, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Robinson, etc., that’s it got masked a bit. 

The NBA today has an amazing crop of talented, super likable, good guys that are as talented as any guys from any era, and the game is based on spacing and ball movement. Yes, it’s too reliant on the 3, I’ll definitely concede that, but otherwise I think the NBA has been fantastic the last 8-10 years. 

[milehiiu]

5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Then how come the same team won every year? Better competition leads to more parity, not less. 

I'm not questioning the Celtics greatness but that's one team and the Lakers were the other. Where was all this talent besides those two?

Definitely not in the heart of the nation..... Until Jordan came around. 

[rico]

5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Then how come the same team won every year? Better competition leads to more parity, not less. 

I'm not questioning the Celtics greatness but that's one team and the Lakers were the other. Where was all this talent besides those two?

Let's take '68-'69 for example.  The Celtics won the title over the Lakers.  Boston finished 4th in the East that year.  14 teams.  7 team divisions.  4th?  The Bullets, Knicks , and Sixers were ahead of them.

 

[KoB2011]

5 minutes ago, rico said:

Let's take '68-'69 for example.  The Celtics won the title over the Lakers.  Boston finished 4th in the East that year.  14 teams.  7 team divisions.  4th?  The Bullets, Knicks , and Sixers were ahead of them.

 

1) a one year peice of anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. 

2) that doesn't prove your point. It proves the Celtics finished fourth after having won 8 of 9 titles. Do you think the regular season may have not captured their focus? It seems much more plausible the defending champs, who would go on to win another, lacked motivation in the regular season than they were simply an average team for the time that got hot. 

[rico]

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

1) a one year peice of anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. 

2) that doesn't prove your point. It proves the Celtics finished fourth after having won 8 of 9 titles. Do you think the regular season may have not captured their focus? It seems much more plausible the defending champs, who would go on to win another, lacked motivation in the regular season than they were simply an average team for the time that got hot. 

I am not trying to prove anything, just my stance concerning the NBA in that era.  And keep in mind the Celtics missed the play-offs the following year.  

[FW_Hoosier]

12 hours 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.  

 

This.  If you took the ten best players in today’s NBA and put them up against the ten best players from the 60s and 70s, today’s players would win by 50, under any rules.  But I think the skill and athleticism gap narrows as you get into the 80s and definitely the 90s.

[HoosierFaithful]

I'm sorry but "the league was smaller!" isn't a valid justification for trying to argue that today's NBA is watered down.

 

 

[KoB2011]

2 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

I'm sorry but "the league was smaller!" isn't a valid justification for trying to argue that today's NBA is watered down.

 

 

America was better in the 1790s. There were less states. 

[rico]

35 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

I'm sorry but "the league was smaller!" isn't a valid justification for trying to argue that today's NBA is watered down.

 

 

OK...you are entitled to your opinion.  

[rico]

33 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

America was better in the 1790s. There were less states. 

And just maybe America was better in the 1790's?

[HoosierFaithful]

3 minutes ago, rico said:

OK...you are entitled to your opinion.  

and you yours!

[KoB2011]

4 minutes ago, rico said:

And just maybe America was better in the 1790's?

Maybe, depending on who you ask and how you choose to look at it. 

[FW_Hoosier]

The “fundamentals” argument for the old timers makes me laugh.  Rob Johnson has better handles than pretty much every NBA player from the 1960s, and it’s not even close.  And you can probably count on one hand the number of guys from back then that could even get a shot off in today’s NBA with how slow their releases were.

The “competition” argument is also silly.   Really impressive how those great players were able to hit all those layups and turnaround jumpers on the short, slow, pathetically unathletic white guys that made up the league back then.  Oscar Robertson couldn’t even dunk — a guy like Lebron or KD would block his shot into orbit.  Bob Cousy’s head would explode after watching Kyrie Irving dribble for 10 seconds.  Jerry West wouldn’t be able to get the ball past halfcourt with Kawhi Leonard guarding him.

[KoB2011]

26 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

The “fundamentals” argument for the old timers makes me laugh.  Rob Johnson has better handles than pretty much every NBA player from the 1960s, and it’s not even close.  And you can probably count on one hand the number of guys from back then that could even get a shot off in today’s NBA with how slow their releases were.

The “competition” argument is also silly.   Really impressive how those great players were able to hit all those layups and turnaround jumpers on the short, slow, pathetically unathletic white guys that made up the league back then.  Oscar Robertson couldn’t even dunk — a guy like Lebron or KD would block his shot into orbit.  Bob Cousy’s head would explode after watching Kyrie Irving dribble for 10 seconds.  Jerry West wouldn’t be able to get the ball past halfcourt with Kawhi Leonard guarding him.

I agree with a lot of this, but Oscar Robertson could definitely dunk. There's a difference between ability to dunk and desire to dunk. 

[5fouls]

I think it's debatable whether every player on an NBA Roster in '64-'65, when there were only 9 teams,  would even make an NBA roster today (when there are 30 teams).  I think that concept alone would support the fact that today's players are 'better'.  

For the sake of argument, assume 15 man rosters in both eras (including injured players).  The theory I've documented above would indicate that the worst player in '64-'65 could arguably be called the 135th best player in the world.  Today, again assuming a 15 man roster, there are 450 players.  So, if you support the concept, the 135th best player from the 60's is not as good as the 450th best player today.  I believe that is a true statement.