Today vs. Yesterday

[milehiiu]

40 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

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.

 

Bob Cousy played in the NBA from 1950 to 1963.  I watched him as I grew.  He had skills. Skills you don't see today. 

[IU Scott]

13 hours ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

I'm an old geezer so would trend towards Scott's argument. But here is where I think the distinctions are.

-By far, players today are bigger, faster, stronger, can jump higher, etc. Better training, better nutrition, better medical practices, and the ability to devote 365 days a year to their games. That last point is huge. Back, way back, many of the players had to supplement their income by working in the offseason at other jobs. Couldn't just focus on improving during the offseason.

- In my opinion, players from the past were better schooled on fundamentals. I believe there was more time spent drilling on those skills. In saying that, today's game probably isn't as reliant on being as fundamentally sound, as better athletic ability covers up for fundamental flaws. I think that makes for a more exciting brand of basketball and probably more aesthetically pleasing to the "And-1" generation but not so much to a basketball purist.

-I don't think that there's a right or wrong answer here and one of the beauties of this board is that there are members that appear to span a wide range of ages. Each has their own point of reference that colors their opinions. Each is probably going to drive themselves crazy trying to convince the others that their version is better .

Gotta love the various opinions and gotta love that for the most part, the back and forth has been respectful.

I guess my argument is that the product on the court that I see is just not as appealing to me as the product was back in the 80's and 90's in both college and pro basketball.  I just don't like the direction the game is going on more one on one basketball or just running the pick and roll every time down the court.  I love seeing ball movement and seeing guys run off screens to get open instead of relying on guys to beat there own man.

[5fouls]

12 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Bob Cousy played in the NBA from 1950 to 1963.  I watched him as I grew.  He had skills. Skills you don't see today. 

I don't disagree with that.  Cousy, Wilt, Russell, Oscar, would all have a place in the game today, and would still be Hall of Famers.  My point is that there are more (many more) good players in the game today, and that the bench guys today would thrive more playing in the 60's than the bench guys from the 60's would if they played today.  

 

[rico]

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess my argument is that the product on the court that I see is just not as appealing to me as the product was back in the 80's and 90's in both college and pro basketball.  I just don't like the direction the game is going on more one on one basketball or just running the pick and roll every time down the court.  I love seeing ball movement and seeing guys run off screens to get open instead of relying on guys to beat there own man.

That is a good argument to make......is the game better today than what it was yesterday?  I guess that is for each person to decide for themselves.  But it is damn fun discussing it.

[FW_Hoosier]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

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.

 

I would bet there were maybe 10 total players on an NBA roster in 64-65 that could make an NBA roster today.

[IU Scott]

11 hours 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?

By being water down it means that there are way to many teams in the league and it water down the talent in the league.  When I talk about when the league what its best I am talking about the 80's and 90's and more teams had quality players than they do today.  You have the same teams playing in the finals today and there is less competition for the champion today just like it was with the Celtics in the 60's.

[IU Scott]

7 hours 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.

But those players back then played smarter and would just pump fake and get those better athletes in the air and o=go right pass them for the layup.  Nobody today knows how to use low post moves like a McHale or Olguwaun who can use those moves to get pass those athletic players.  Also why do people think there were no athletes back in the 80's because I am pretty sure a Wilkens and a Nance or Jordan might disagree with that.  The best dunk contest of all time was in 85 between Wilkens and Jordan.  also in 86 a 5'7 point guard was athletic enough to win the dunk contest.  So you don't think Dr. J was not athletic since he played n the 70's.

[IU Scott]

25 minutes ago, rico said:

That is a good argument to make......is the game better today than what it was yesterday?  I guess that is for each person to decide for themselves.  But it is damn fun discussing it.

Also the reason I like this site better than any other is that even when people disagree it stays civil on here.  On other boards this discussion would become a name calling match where people would stop talking about the topic.

[BGleas]

45 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess my argument is that the product on the court that I see is just not as appealing to me as the product was back in the 80's and 90's in both college and pro basketball.  I just don't like the direction the game is going on more one on one basketball or just running the pick and roll every time down the court.  I love seeing ball movement and seeing guys run off screens to get open instead of relying on guys to beat there own man.

In my opinion college basketball is worse today, but that’s mainly because the talent is leaving and isn’t there. As far as the NBA, I know you’ve said at times that you don’t watch anymore, so I’d ask you how much NBA you’ve watched over the last 10 years? 

I ask, because as someone that has been a devout NBA fan since the early 80’s and worked in the league in the early 2000’s, my opinion is that NBA over the last 10 years blows away the NBA of the 90’s And is comparable to the 80’s. There are some many high level, likeable super stars in the NBA right now, and the game is one of fast pace and ball movement, as opposed to the isolation game of the 90’s. 

The Warriors recent and the Spurs when they won the title recently are some of the best offense the NBA has ever seen. I remember when the Spurs beat the Heat a few years ago, I told people after that series that if someone asked me how to play basketball I would put in a tape of that series and tell them to watch the Spurs. It was a thing of beauty. 

[KoB2011]

38 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

By being water down it means that there are way to many teams in the league and it water down the talent in the league.  When I talk about when the league what its best I am talking about the 80's and 90's and more teams had quality players than they do today.  You have the same teams playing in the finals today and there is less competition for the champion today just like it was with the Celtics in the 60's.

This is completely false. We've had 6 different champs in 8 years of the 2010s. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're evidently basing it on demonstrably false facts about how competitive the game is and the concentration of talent. 

[IU Scott]

21 minutes ago, BGleas said:

In my opinion college basketball is worse today, but that’s mainly because the talent is leaving and isn’t there. As far as the NBA, I know you’ve said at times that you don’t watch anymore, so I’d ask you how much NBA you’ve watched over the last 10 years? 

I ask, because as someone that has been a devout NBA fan since the early 80’s and worked in the league in the early 2000’s, my opinion is that NBA over the last 10 years blows away the NBA of the 90’s And is comparable to the 80’s. There are some many high level, likeable super stars in the NBA right now, and the game is one of fast pace and ball movement, as opposed to the isolation game of the 90’s. 

The Warriors recent and the Spurs when they won the title recently are some of the best offense the NBA has ever seen. I remember when the Spurs beat the Heat a few years ago, I told people after that series that if someone asked me how to play basketball I would put in a tape of that series and tell them to watch the Spurs. It was a thing of beauty. 

I have probably watched about all but 5 Pacers this year and have watched a lot of their games over those 10 years.  I try to sit down and watch other NBA games but it just does not peak my interest enough to watch the whole game.  On the other hand I will still watch about any college game that is on if I am at home.

[IU Scott]

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

This is completely false. We've had 6 different champs in 8 years of the 2010s. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're evidently basing it on demonstrably false facts about how competitive the game is and the concentration of talent. 

And today Golden St. and Cleveland has met in the final 3 straight years.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

And today Golden St. and Cleveland has met in the final 3 straight years.

But they probably won't this year? It's very possible we get a 7th new champ in nine years this season (Celtics or Houston). 

I get that people want to knock the super teams, but that's ALWAYS been the NBA. There are more super teams now than ever IMO, largely because there are more high level players. 

[rico]

50 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

I would bet there were maybe 10 total players on an NBA roster in 64-65 that could make an NBA roster today.

Well I haven't looked it up but off the top of my head........Wilt, Russell, Willis Reed, West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar, Lucas, KC Jones......maybe I will look that up!!!!!!  LOL

[IU Scott]

Just now, KoB2011 said:

But they probably won't this year? It's very possible we get a 7th new champ in nine years this season (Celtics or Houston). 

Hopefully that will happen but I would put my money on Golden St. if I were a betting man.  I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on the topic of the NBA because I just don't find it appealing to watch.  To me there are to many game sin the season and always have thought that.  I see to many times where teams just mail in the game and really don't play hard because they have played like 4 games in 7 nights on a 5 game road trip.  I remember a couple of weeks ago watching the Pacers vs Milwaukee game and Milwaukee pretty much laid down that game and put in a terrible effort.  I also just like the atmosphere of a college game over the NBA any day and that has something to do with me like watching the college game over the NBA.  To me the atmosphere of the NBA game is to sterial and the NBA tries to make fake atmosphere instead of letting the fans create the atmosphere.

I have been to both the NBA playoffs and the NCAA tournament and to me I will take the experience of the tournament over the playoffs as well..

[FW_Hoosier]

33 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

But those players back then played smarter and would just pump fake and get those better athletes in the air and o=go right pass them for the layup.  Nobody today knows how to use low post moves like a McHale or Olguwaun who can use those moves to get pass those athletic players.  Also why do people think there were no athletes back in the 80's because I am pretty sure a Wilkens and a Nance or Jordan might disagree with that.  The best dunk contest of all time was in 85 between Wilkens and Jordan.  also in 86 a 5'7 point guard was athletic enough to win the dunk contest.  So you don't think Dr. J was not athletic since he played n the 70's.

I was talking about today’s players compared to the 60s and 70s, when the game was played by used car salesmen and barely anyone in the NBA could even dribble with their left hand.  Putting the best of today’s era against the best of that era would be like the Monstars against the Looney Tunes.

I think as you move into the 80s and 90s, the skill and athleticism gap between now and then narrowed to the point where you can have a legitimate discussion.  Even so, no, it would not be as easy as a player like Olajuwon or McHale just pump faking to get easy baskets against today’s players.  Today’s NBA players are just as, if not more, skilled and fundamentally sound compared to the players in the 80s and 90s.  The stronger argument for the 80s and 90s is that today’s players couldn’t handle the physicality they were allowed to play with back then.

[rico]

Maybe it has been brought up but I missed it?  The international flavor to the game today.

[KoB2011]

16 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Hopefully that will happen but I would put my money on Golden St. if I were a betting man.  I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on the topic of the NBA because I just don't find it appealing to watch.  To me there are to many game sin the season and always have thought that.  I see to many times where teams just mail in the game and really don't play hard because they have played like 4 games in 7 nights on a 5 game road trip.  I remember a couple of weeks ago watching the Pacers vs Milwaukee game and Milwaukee pretty much laid down that game and put in a terrible effort.  I also just like the atmosphere of a college game over the NBA any day and that has something to do with me like watching the college game over the NBA.  To me the atmosphere of the NBA game is to sterial and the NBA tries to make fake atmosphere instead of letting the fans create the atmosphere.

I have been to both the NBA playoffs and the NCAA tournament and to me I will take the experience of the tournament over the playoffs as well..

That's always been the case with the regular season. The Celtics finished fourth in a seven team conference one year they won the title because of lack of interest. 

It's fine to have a person preferance but you always, and I mean always, say the old time NBA better, or the old time this or that is better then never, and I mean never, provide anything to back it. 

[BGleas]

Can we please separate the 80's from the 90's in this discussion? The 90's were great in terms of star power, but the basketball was not great. It was skilled, but it was largely isolation basketball, defenses were allowed to completely grab, hold, etc. (think Knicks) and then it was also bad because it was basically a forgone conclusion that Bulls were going to win the title. The 80's were great, but today's NBA is fantastic, and on par with the 80's. 

[IU Scott]

17 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

That's always been the case with the regular season. The Celtics finished fourth in a seven team conference one year they won the title because of lack of interest. 

It's fine to have a person preferance but you always, and I mean always, say the old time NBA better, or the old time this or that is better then never, and I mean never, provide anything to back it. 

I never said real old time NBA unless you think the 80's are old time. I stand by my opinion that the NBA of that era is way better than the product we see today.  It is OK if you don't agree with that opinion but you won't change it as well.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

Can we please separate the 80's from the 90's in this discussion? The 90's were great in terms of star power, but the basketball was not great. It was skilled, but it was largely isolation basketball, defenses were allowed to completely grab, hold, etc. (think Knicks) and then it was also bad because it was basically a forgone conclusion that Bulls were going to win the title. The 80's were great, but today's NBA is fantastic, and on par with the 80's. 

Even though the NBA in the 90's was way to much physical I still enjoyed watching it as well.  Maybe it had to do with the fact that the Pacers were competing for championships in that decade.

[BGleas]

37 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have been to both the NBA playoffs and the NCAA tournament and to me I will take the experience of the tournament over the playoffs as well..

I've been to both as well, and am surprised on your opinion here. Most NCAA Tournament games are in cavernous stadiums with mix-matched fans because of the multiple games, and the arena is usually partially filled. Maybe I'm jaded because the NBA playoff games I've been to are Celtics games (sort of like a blueblood college basketball crowd), but the NBA playoff games I've been too the atmosphere has been amazing. Your heart is thumping because the crowd is so loud, you can hardly think because it's so loud. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

49 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Hopefully that will happen but I would put my money on Golden St. if I were a betting man.  I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on the topic of the NBA because I just don't find it appealing to watch.  To me there are to many game sin the season and always have thought that.  I see to many times where teams just mail in the game and really don't play hard because they have played like 4 games in 7 nights on a 5 game road trip.  I remember a couple of weeks ago watching the Pacers vs Milwaukee game and Milwaukee pretty much laid down that game and put in a terrible effort.  I also just like the atmosphere of a college game over the NBA any day and that has something to do with me like watching the college game over the NBA.  To me the atmosphere of the NBA game is to sterial and the NBA tries to make fake atmosphere instead of letting the fans create the atmosphere.

I have been to both the NBA playoffs and the NCAA tournament and to me I will take the experience of the tournament over the playoffs as well..

Certainly people can see the game differently, based on their own preferences and context. You grew up watching the game played a certain way, and you prefer that, that's completely understandable.

Do think we all tend to view what we prefer through rosy glasses, though. The 80's in particular had all kinds of drug issues in the NBA, players playing wacked out on coke and speed, players dying of overdoses, a "product" on the floor that included bloody fights fairly frequently, the infamous Rudy Tamjanovich punch, etc. Hey, I played hockey, I've been in multiple fights on and off the ice, but personally I much prefer a game where you will never see LeBron throw a punch, and the "product" emphasizes protecting the players and fans and broadening the audience to the casual fan, including kids.

So while you're critiquing teams mailing it in, because there  are 82 games (which I agree is too many) and the draft is set up to favor losing teams (although that's skewed, the big market teams continue to go over the cap and acquire the best players via trades), there were all kinds of problems with the NBA in the 80's, and, until they re-wrote the rules to prevent back-down isolation ball (remember Mark Jackson on the Pacers? Everyone would just stand around while he literally backed the ball into the post, that's not exciting ball), the game was less about movement and more about iso and a few stars.

Now you have teams in the NBA that have completely rejuvinated the ball movement and sharing game, it started with the Spurs (no past team moved the ball better than the Spurs with Duncan, period), then Golden State, mostly a home grown team until the Durant acquisition (which I hate), has turned ball movement and outside shooting into an art form, and now you're seeing teams, really the whole League,.change to meet that challenge, the Celtics under Brad S (who is well on course to becoming one of the best NBA coaches, if he's not already demonstrated that), the Thunder's acquisition of PG to run with Westbrook with lock down defense paired with outside shooting, heck the Pacers acquisition of Vic and the floor-spreading he provides with the pick and roll game and outside shooting (and if you're a Pacers fan, how can you not like that?) is a clear improvement over the Mark Jackson - era back-down into the post game. Things change, that's not always a bad thing.

[HoosierFaithful]

I am utterly baffled as to how someone can say NBA teams dont "play the game the right way."  The Pacers don't rely on "one on one" basketball. They move the ball, find the open man, and exploit weaknesses. 

Large portions of the game exists where every Pacer is a 3 point threat. Our C hit 4 last night. And that is normal! 

[IU Scott]

15 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I've been to both as well, and am surprised on your opinion here. Most NCAA Tournament games are in cavernous stadiums with mix-matched fans because of the multiple games, and the arena is usually partially filled. Maybe I'm jaded because the NBA playoff games I've been to are Celtics games (sort of like a blueblood college basketball crowd), but the NBA playoff games I've been too the atmosphere has been amazing. Your heart is thumping because the crowd is so loud, you can hardly think because it's so loud. 

I guess I was luck when I went to the tournament here in Indy at the RCA dome because for most of the years we had some local teams that borught huge crowd.  Also since I prefer the college game and its atmosphere it shouldn't be a big surprise.  I have seen IU, Purdue, UL(twice), UI, Xavier(twice), Ball St. Notre Dame and they all brought great crowds to the dome.  Also OSU was there one year and they actually brought a huge crowd.

 

The crowds were great at the Pacers playoffs that I went to but a lot of the pipe in music is not to my liking. I was at game 4 of a series against the Celtics where the Pacers came back to force a deciding game 5 at the Garden.  That was the series where Bird in game five went down after hitting his head on the court but came back to beat the Pacers.  I also was at the deciding game 3 victory against Orlando which gave the Pacers their first playoff series win.