Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

defense: 80s vs today

8K views 150 replies 28 participants last post by  RollWithEm 
#1 ·
was the overall defense of the nba stronger in the 80s (pick a year)?

were the wing defenders better in the 80s?
 
#77 ·
Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?

Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
are you honestly trying to say the avg. teams of the 80s are better or equal to the current dallas mavs?

:rofl:

lets pick a team at random to prove how silly this is

i know the mavs of the mid-80's the 1984-85 mavs (they had an avg. record of 44-38)

who was on that team that is as good as the current core of Dirk nowitki ,raef lafrentz, Mike finley , steve nash, nick van exel,

ro blackmon sure he was good but who else a rookie sam perkins i dont think so the immortal brad davis (uh uh)

dale ellis,? he avg. a mighty 9.3 a game in the run and gun 80's so so probably not

derek harper ?...you must be kidding the often claimed best player never to make an all star team was so far from all-star calibur play they might not even have let him watch the game let alone play in it (9. pts 4 asts )

brad davis ....led this team in assists at 7 with 10 points a game

mark aquirre was good but at 6'6 he couldn't have anywhere near the success he had then in today's nba (picture him posting up dirk or KG and these 2 are just in his own division)

the current mavs would eat this team alive and leave their carcus for vultures

who amonst this group of supposed modern day world beaters can guard Dirk?...aquirre ? he was one of the worst defenders the 80's had to offer

sam perkins ? ...highly doubtful and that would leave the aforementioned aquirre guarding ol' raef...the mighty jay vincent perhaps? could have done the job

who was the center on that team...uwe blab? it wasn't donaldson he came midway next year oh wait it was the mighty sam perkins the 6'9 rookie

just admit this was a silly idea this woas lucky to win as much as it did back then ....and to think you actually reffered to the dallas pgs as midgets when nash is 6'3 and harper is 6'4 and brad davis is only 6'3 himself

if you want to call anything puny try the the old dallas front line6'6 6'8 & 6'9 and not bruiser in the bunch

and while you are doing that you can answer why if the 80's defense was so great why did they change the way they play defense throughout most of the league ?

First of all, if you're going to compare teams across eras at least compare the best team of today to the best team of that era. The Celtics and Lakers would kill the current Mavs, Kings, or Lakers squad. You have no argument there.

Mark Agguire couldn't score against players today? Sorry, but he was doing his thing against bigger and more athletic players back then also. I'm guessing that you and Skywalker were about 5-10 years old in the 80's making the arguments you are making.
 
#78 ·
Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?

Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!



First of all, if you're going to compare teams across eras at least compare the best team of today to the best team of that era. The Celtics and Lakers would kill the current Mavs, Kings, or Lakers squad. You have no argument there.

Mark Agguire couldn't score against players today? Sorry, but he was doing his thing against bigger and more athletic players back then also. I'm guessing that you and Skywalker were about 5-10 years old in the 80's making the arguments you are making.
actually i didn't make up the premise i was answering

it was showtime 84 who said the current mavs would be an avg. team in the 80's

so i picked and avg. team in the 80's and compared them to show how off that assertion was

and if you want to talk across eras who do the lakers have or the celtics have that would have even slowed a shaq

robert parish ....? come on walton(greg kite anyone?) was there for a year and he was immoble compared to his earlier years a 40 year old kareem his backup mychal thompson

i saw the lakers and celts of the 80s and the supposed greatest front line in history would have been killed by one man and is almost crazy to say otherwise (rob parish would be giving away like 100 lbs as would mchale) they would have been forced into the same double teaming tactics that team today are

and i saw how well the celts of that time did against a young MJ and kobe would have obliterated them (kobe doesn't have dave corzine at center unlike jordan so they may have to play him one on one )

the lakers are a 2 man team today but neither man would have been stopped by the the great teams of before so just like the good ones of today they would have lost

and there is a huge difference scoring on thurl bailey and scoring on KG so you'll just have to excuse me if i'm skeptical on aquirre's chances
 
#79 ·
These are my thoughts on this matter.

1. Is today's defense better than that in the 80's? In my opinion, defense is overstimated because of poorer offense.

2. To me one of the keys id that there are basically no centers. If you put yourself in 1986, you had: Moses, Kareem, Akeem, Patrick, Donaldson, Parish, Edwards, Cartwright, Laimbeer, Eaton, J.B. Carrol, Daugherty (well, he entered in 1986, maybe he should not count) ... and I am leaving a whole bunch which would make a team nowadays. This changes the game a great deal. You actually had to play interior defense, beacuse there were guys who knew how to play down low. Shaq would suffer a lot more those days because he would have had to play defense.

3. Somebody mentioned that today's teams are taller and that "midgets" such as Dantley would not make it in today's game. Well, I can recall a few line ups with very tall guys back then.

How about the 86-87 Bucks?

PG Paul Pressy 6'5"
SG Jerry Reynolds 6'8"
SF Terry Cummings 6'9"
PF Jack Sikma 6'11"
C Randy Breuer 7'3"

A guy like Dantley had to play aginst the likes of James Worthy, Bird (or McHale), Robert Reid, Vandeweghe, Dominique Wilkins ... Of course there were shorter guys, but as it happens today. The Knicks have a very small line up on the court many times, just to name one.

Hey, look at the line ups the Lakers or the Celtics had those days. They were big!

4. There are very good players these days. I actually believe the NBA is rising from a critical level of playing. I feel the basketball being displayed this season is the best in the last four or five years (although I don't fancy individual exhibitions for the sake of them).

5. Good defenders in the 80's? Here are a few.

Michael Cooper
Sidney Moncrief
Dennis Rodman (he entered the league in 1986 at age 25).
Dennis Johnson
Kevin McHale
Maurice Cheeks
Joe Dumars
Alvin Robertson
Mark Eaton
T.R. Dunn
Akeem Olajuwon

There were also a lot of more than decent defenders.

6. Just to make my pont that the level of playing was much better then, let me name a guy: Bobby Hansen. Never an all star, not spectacular, but if he were 27 years old today, teams would kill to get him. He could shoot the ball...

7. What players should also be mentioned?

George Gervin
Larry Nance
James Worthy
Kiki Vandeweghe
Alex English
Bernard King
Danny Ainge
Ralph Sampson (from 83-86)
Clyde Drexler
Glenn Rivers
Derek Harper
Otis Thorpe
Reggie Theus
Terry Cummings
Thurl Bailey
Charles Barkley
....
and a whole lot more

Those guys would be priceless today, regardless of the fact that they were good or bad defenders.


Conclusion

Even though players are physically stronger, their defense is overstimated by the fact that offensive capabilities is much poorer and becaase there are almost no decent centers on the game.
 
#80 ·
While the Showtime Lakers would've had to worry about a gimpy Shaq and Kobe, the present Lakers would have to worry about:

Kareem
Magic
Worthy
Scott
Cooper
Wilkes
McAdoo
Rambis
Kupchak

Not to mention the greatest fast break attack in HISTORY along with a hellish preassure defense.

This is not even a contest.

Shaq would probably pass out at halfcourt from chasing Showtime around.

Shaq+Kobe=70 while Showtime=120 at least!
 
#81 ·
I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:

C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
PF-Perkins, Tarpley
SF-Aguirre, Shremph
SG-Blackman, Alford
PG-Harper, Davis

I'm sorry dude, but that team would absolute ABUSE the present Mavs, the 1988 Mavs frontline would leave the present puss!es Black and Blue.

Mark Aguirre used to get his points against Scottie Pippen(greatest defender of all time) who the hell on the present Mavs is gonna stop him, Najera? Please, Nowitzky? HELL NO!!!, Bell? LOL!!!

And nobody has to guard Nowitzky, that dude guards himself! A 7 footer shooting fade aways and 20 footer at 48% The 88' Mavs would live happily with that.

That team had 3 all-stars in the starting lineup and 2 horses in Roy Tarpley and Detlef Shremph coming off the bench.

Again, NO CONTEST!
 
#82 · (Edited)
Let's look at the arguments for a weakening of the NBA:

Expansion
The theory is that the NBA expanded by 4 teams (or by 13%) in the last 15 years, thereby watering down talent.

The problem with this argument is that it disregards that while there were more teams needing talent, there was also a quickly growing pool of talent:

- The US population grew in that same span of time from 230 million people to 280 million people (or by 17%).

- More kids in the 80's and 90's were learning to play ball than in the 60's or 70's. Stars like Dr. J, Bird, Magic and Jordan drastically enhanced the popularity of the game. Huge salaries emerged in the 80's making it a "dream job". Those kids who watched the game then are potentially in the NBA now.

- It's now a worldwide game instead of an American game. Sabonis is the only non-North American I can remember from the 80's. That has obviously changed.

Anyone looking at these trends can plainly see that the pool of potential players is greater now then at any time in NBA history. And certainly more than enough to compensate for a 13% growth in demand for NBA players.

The Salary Cap
The theory is that no team can accumulate enough good talent on their team like the Lakeshow did in the 80's or Celts did in the 60's because they'd go bankrupt.

The problem with this argument is that it goes both ways. If most of the talent in the NBA was localized in a few teams, doesn't that also mean that the rest of the league had less talent?

You only have so many great players. If the Lakeshow did a good job of hording great players, that means it didn't have to face as many other great players on a nightly basis. That means it faced more inferior competition than a team like the current Lakers faces.

Sure, the Lakeshow battled with those great Celtics teams, but it faced some really bad Portland and Chicago teams. If the Lakeshow had been run by current rules, that Portland team might've had a lot more talent on it because of the parrity.

So actually, the star teams of the 80's had it easier than teams do now. Now nearly every team fields at least one really good player.

Players come out too early and don't learn "fundamentals"
The argument is that we have so many kids coming out of high school that they aren't learning how to shoot a midrange jumper or any of the other basics that they would in college.

Well, I went to college, and after being in the business world for 8 years I can say that most of what I do on a daily basis I learned on the job. Why? Because my particular business has done a far better job of teaching me about my job than college did.

Why do we expect it's much different in the NBA? IMO, it's pretty rare when on the job training isn't the best kind of training. Who is better at teaching an athlete about what he needs to learn than an NBA trainer who's only job it is to develop one or two young players?

Are you going to learn better in a college environment where you have scholarships, no salary and many things are free? Not to mention far inferior competition? Or are you going to learn better in an NBA environment where everyone around you is making millions of dollars more than you are?

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. I honestly can't think of a single, irrefutable reason why the NBA now should be less competitive now than it was 15 years ago. Guys are bigger/faster/stronger, there's more money involved so there's more incentive to succeed, and the talent pool is bigger than ever.
 
#83 ·
Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.

Then check out the same stats for Kobe, Garnett, T-mac, O'neal,Chandler, Curry and Brown and then tell me if at least 2 years of college doesn't make a difference.

Jumping early only benefits the players but it sure as hell doesn't benefit the NBA. Why do you think David Stern is in favor 20 year old age limit??? He's a smart man and he knows that one of the main reasons for the quality of ball that triggered the Golden Age of the NBA was that EVERYBODY went to college for at least 2 years. He wants to and WILL see that happen again.

In the late 80's, early 90's small market teams like Cleveland, Milwakee and Golden State all had 3 all-stars a piece!!! Do you think with the present HARD CAP those franshises could field that firepower? HELL NO!!!

There are only 2 teams in the NBA with that kind of talent, Dallas and Sacramento, and their owners are freaking BILLIONARES!!!

The present NBA climate has 30 teams, WEAK DRAFTS, every mediocre player thinks he's worth the max and finally a freakin HARD CAP!!!

In the 80's there were 23 teams, DEEP DRAFTS, low salaries and a SOFT CAP! EVERY team had at least 2 to 3 all-star caliber players.

It's obvious what league was deeper.
 
#84 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:

C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
PF-Perkins, Tarpley
SF-Aguirre, Shremph
SG-Blackman, Alford
PG-Harper, Davis

I'm sorry dude, but that team would absolute ABUSE the present Mavs, the 1988 Mavs frontline would leave the present puss!es Black and Blue.

Mark Aguirre used to get his points against Scottie Pippen(greatest defender of all time) who the hell on the present Mavs is gonna stop him, Najera? Please, Nowitzky? HELL NO!!!, Bell? LOL!!!

And nobody has to guard Nowitzky, that dude guards himself! A 7 footer shooting fade aways and 20 footer at 48% The 88' Mavs would live happily with that.

That team had 3 all-stars in the starting lineup and 2 horses in Roy Tarpley and Detlef Shremph coming off the bench.

Again, NO CONTEST!

lets use some realism here

1 mark aquirre didn't abuse pippen in any sense or form the 1988 year pip was a rookie getting about 16 min . a game by the time he met the pippen that was on a track to greatness(2 years later when aquirre was a piston) in becoming, he locked the mr aquirre down prompting Daly to go with Rodman most of the time against the bulls as at the grand ol' age of 31 his game was already becoming outdated

schrempf shot 15% from 3 pt range and avg 8 pts a game there was a reason he was traded he was underachieving he he was a horse they would have shot him and sold him for glue

perkins and donaldson were nothing to write home about, brad davis was over the hill and alford was a washout in the nba

did you actually mention "trampoline hands" bill wennington as a player in the mavs circa 1988 ...he played 125 minutes the whole season pardon me if i dont think much of his contribution to the team

what about the immortal Uwe blab? he played 658 minutes that year and avg more points than incrediblill wennington (2.2 to 2.1)

tarpley could play but we all know his career turned out
blackkmon had game and harper could play but not quite at the level people saying he should be an all-star yet, aguirre was starting to fade(which is why he was traded in the middle of the next year and following that next year would never avg. above 14 points agame again )

and to set the record straight you said nothing about which year you said the current mavs would be an avg team if they played in the 80's so i picked an avg. team in the 80's the 44-38 1984-85 mavs and compared them to prove apoint the mavs you chose won 53 and made it to the wcf so i'm thinking you may not know what you are talking about and maybe want to stop being so nostalgic about the good ol' days because your perception is blurred because this team fell right back into mediocrity with 38 wins the next year

and yes the current mavs would still beat these mavs and contrary to what you believe the modern day squad would win (probably pretty easily)
 
#85 ·
and what does the salary cap have to do with how well players play?

they got paid a pittance compared to what they get now so it cant be the amount

and if the argument is better players it doesn't matter where they go as long as they play in the nba (the discussion is leaguewide not just a few teams as some want to make it even though its really suppose to be about defense )

who cares that keon couldn't play for raptors he plays for the kings the league talent level doesn't go down ...if he went to the itallian league it would be another story
 
#86 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I' say this again, the Dallas freakin Mavericks are the best team the present NBA has to offer and they would be just an average team by 80's standards.

They can run, shoot and SCORE on anybody in the present NBA and with what:

1. 3 offensive ONLY midgets a PG

2. The weakest front line for a contending team maybe in HISTORY with Bradley, Nowtzky and Lafrentz. All of them are allergic to the paint on BOTH sides of the ball.

3. A 2-guard in Finley that is one of the worst defenders in the league.

4. And finaly role players like Najera, Bell and Griffin who can only score on the fast break or open jumpers.

The 80's Hawks, Cavs, Jazz, Nuggets and Mavs were ALL better than this sorry team and they didn't even get close to sniffing a title.

Face it the league is WATERED DOWN, WHY?

29 teams, high salaries, weak drafts and a HARD CAP!




the heart and soul of the Dallas Mavericks is a 7 foot freak of nature named Dirk Nowitski. Dirk would literally DOMINATE the 80's with their 6'5 small forwards. THAT is why the Mavericks would be a top team in the 80's. superstar freaks of nature rule the league like no other era before, and that is a fact.
 
#87 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.

Then check out the same stats for Kobe, Garnett, T-mac, O'neal,Chandler, Curry and Brown and then tell me if at least 2 years of college doesn't make a difference.

Jumping early only benefits the players but it sure as hell doesn't benefit the NBA. Why do you think David Stern is in favor 20 year old age limit??? He's a smart man and he knows that one of the main reasons for the quality of ball that triggered the Golden Age of the NBA was that EVERYBODY went to college for at least 2 years. He wants to and WILL see that happen again.

In the late 80's, early 90's small market teams like Cleveland, Milwakee and Golden State all had 3 all-stars a piece!!! Do you think with the present HARD CAP those franshises could field that firepower? HELL NO!!!

There are only 2 teams in the NBA with that kind of talent, Dallas and Sacramento, and their owners are freaking BILLIONARES!!!

The present NBA climate has 30 teams, WEAK DRAFTS, every mediocre player thinks he's worth the max and finally a freakin HARD CAP!!!

In the 80's there were 23 teams, DEEP DRAFTS, low salaries and a SOFT CAP! EVERY team had at least 2 to 3 all-star caliber players.

It's obvious what league was deeper.
you act as if kwame brown tyson chandler and eddy curry push jerry west out the game in his prime

do you know who gets pushed out ?

the 39 yr/old center with bad knees who is the 15 th man on the roster, if the player being sent away is a quality player he latches on to another team and a strong team gets stronger (because the weaker teams are the ones who generally get the teenagers) its a bad argument i've heard it for years and its wrong

who got the door never to return when the bulls got their 2 teenagers ? michael ruffin & david wood bad teams aren't going to get rid of their few quality players for players they know aren't ready to play and the trade they made to get them more time helped build up the pacers (brad miller ron artest & ron mercer) to the level they are currently at

the league didn't go down at all for coming of chandler and curry it became more compelling as they are allready better than ruffin and wood and the pacers are pretty tough nowadays
 
#88 ·
Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.
The people you listed all started at around the age of 22. Go check out the stats of Bryant, McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal, Shawn Kemp, Amare or Garnett at the age of 22. Not much different.

The high schoolers bring just as much to the game as the college guys by the age of 22. They just get paid for their training instead of doing it for free.

That's the real problem with all of the people arguing that the NBA is in decline. They like to cite individual players and individual teams as anecdotal evidence of the decline. It just doesn't hold up, because you are trying to compare people playing in different eras, and it's essentially pure speculation.

I've listed some extremely good reasons why the NBA has fiercer competition than ever before. I'd like to see somebody refute my arguments with something other than anecdotes and speculation.
 
#89 ·
Yep a 7foot freak that CANNOT play defense, mediocre passer, no power post up game and shoots 46%FG!!! Yeah 80's teams would be shaking at the tought of facing this bulldozers, LOL!

Do you realize that a 36 year old Larry Bird with a shot back put up better numbers than Irk across the board in 1992 ??? Larry Bird was a REAL FREAK!

Also remember, Karl Malone at 6'8, 40 years old, against the supposed "big man, athletic, freakish" heavy west is still putting up 21ppg, 8rebs, 4assts, 2stls on 46%FG!!!

What this man would do to the present suck filled NBA if he was in his prime would be CRIMINMAL! That goes for the entire 80's as well.
 
#90 ·
Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!


I've listed some extremely good reasons why the NBA has fiercer competition than ever before. I'd like to see somebody refute my arguments with something other than anecdotes and speculation.
it will never happen because what you said was true
 
#91 ·
You just proved my point Wanker.

Those guys came into the league at 20, 21 and 22 ready to kick as! and take names while ENHANCING the quality of the NBA because they,re already seasoned in what competitive basketball is all about.

The young high school punks come into the league at 17 and 18 with NO IDEA how to play the damn game and in those 3, 4 or 5 years they take to develope into decent players they DRAG DOWN the quality of the league NBA.

Can somebody tell me what the hell Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry are doing for the NBA? NOTHING!!! only contributing to it's downfall.

Don't worry, David Stern feels the same way I do and you will see a 20 year old age limit come through in the next CBA. Stern OWNS the players union and he will get his way again
 
#92 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:

C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
PF-Perkins, Tarpley
SF-Aguirre, Shremph
SG-Blackman, Alford
PG-Harper, Davis

I'm sorry dude, but that team would absolute ABUSE the present Mavs, the 1988 Mavs frontline would leave the present puss!es Black and Blue.

Mark Aguirre used to get his points against Scottie Pippen(greatest defender of all time) who the hell on the present Mavs is gonna stop him, Najera? Please, Nowitzky? HELL NO!!!, Bell? LOL!!!

And nobody has to guard Nowitzky, that dude guards himself! A 7 footer shooting fade aways and 20 footer at 48% The 88' Mavs would live happily with that.

That team had 3 all-stars in the starting lineup and 2 horses in Roy Tarpley and Detlef Shremph coming off the bench.

Again, NO CONTEST!
This is easily arguable. First off, as great Aguirre was when he faced Pippen as a Mav, Pip was still a young player and 88' was only his second season. Let's look at that lineup versus today's Mavs.

88' (As you listed) and their stats

C Donaldson (53 G, 10.8 rpg, 9.1 ppg)

PF Tarpley (Tarpley was limited to 19 games in 88-89 so I will use 87-88, 81 G, 11.8 rpg, 13.5 ppg)

SF Aguirre (77 G, 5.6 rpg, 3.6 apg, 25.1 ppg)

SG Blackman (70 G, 3.5 rpg, 3.7 apg, 19.7 ppg)

PG Derek Harper (81 G, 7.0 apg, 17.3 ppg)

Bench:

Schrempf (37 G, 4.5 rpg, 2.3 apg, 9.5 ppg)
Perkins (78 G, 8.8 rpg, 15 ppg)

03' and their stats

C Bradley (55 G, 6.7 rpg, 2.6 bpg, 7 ppg)

PF Dirk (54 G, 9.9 rpg, 23.6 ppg)

SF Griffin (50 G, 3.3 rpg, 4.1 ppg)

SG Finley (56 G, 5 rpg, 3.8 apg, 20.2 ppg)

PG Nash (56 G, 7.0 apg, 17.9 ppg)

Bench:

Lafrentz (42 G, 5.2 rpg, 9 ppg)
Van Exel (47 G, 4.2 apg, 11.7 ppg)
Najera (23 G, 4.5 rpg, 7.3 ppg)

Matchup:

Donaldson vs. Bradley

Donaldson was a monster but he was in his decline when 88' came. His offensive numbers dropped but he still had the presence to command for rebounds. Bradley would struggle to grab rebounds against Donaldson even with his height but Bradley would easily stuff any shots put up by Donaldson.

Tie.

Tarpley vs. Dirk

Two completely different players. Tarpley will be forced to the outside because of Dirk's shooting ability. Most post players are not used to this so Tarpley will eventually forget his man and Dirk will jack threes all night. Tarpley cannot guard Dirk, fact is that Dirk is one of the unguardable players today. However, with that said Tarpley should own the boards against Dirk and Dirk doesn;t have the strength to hold off Tarpley in the post but Tarpley doesn't have a strong offensive game anyways. It is extremely raw especially in 88'. In the end Dirk will dominate against Tarpley on the offensive end and might make Roy foul out.

Dirk.

Aguirre vs. Griffin

Griffin's role on the Mavs is to be stopper. He won't stop Aguirre. Aguirre will get his points but the presence of Bradley will prevent Aguirre from going into the lane which I felt was one of his strengths.

Aguirre.

Blackman vs. Finley

Finley is a more rounded and better player than Blackman. Not to mentioned more athletic and much much stronger. In the end, Finley will pose to much problems for Blackman on the defensive end that his offensive will suffer.

Finley.

Harper vs. Nash

This will be a great matchup. I alway felt that Harper was an outstanding and gritty defender. But, Nash has the speed to counter Harper's gritty offense. This will be a fun matchup as Harper will probably come out on top but having to guard both Nash and Van Exel will drain him.

Tie but eventually the combo of Nash/Van Exel will beat them.

Bench:

The Mavs bench is deep with stars like Raef and Nick who would be starters on other teams. Najera is a hard worker and Walt is always an offensive threat. Avery Johnson has great IQ and Bell is a solid defender. The bench todya is much deeper than the Mavs of the past. Schrempf was great but far from his sixth man days. He was solid and Perkins was an offensive force. Although he was not reallly a bench player since he took Tarpley's place and shared playing time at center with an aged Donaldson. Raef and Perkins whould have been a good matchup. Perkins might be the only bench player than could contend against Van Exel, Raef, and Najera. Alford and Davis were less than impressive.

Overall the depth of the Mavs today is much better than yesterday. The result is that the Mavs of 2003 would win at least 8 out of 10 against the 88' Mavs. But the 88' Mavs would be a playoff contender easily in today's game. The best team...no way. The Celtics and Lakers of the 80's would easily be the best if they played today.
 
#93 ·
Let's ask a different (but related) question: name for me a team sport that's actually seen an INCREASE in scoring over a 30 year span. I doubt you can.

Whether you are talking baseball or basketball, the natural evolution is to have some all-star studs in the earlier years of the sport and some really, really terrible players placed with them. The all-stars completely abuse other teams' terrible players, resulting in Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain-like dominance. You get hundred point games and RBI records.

As a league matures, it grows in popularity and the pool of talent grows with it. There may not be a lot more all-star studs, but there are far more pretty darned good players attracted to the game. Teams can play better defense because they no longer have to field really aweful players. All star studs no longer can completely abuse the really bad players, and scoring predictably falls.

The only major MLB record that's been fought over in the past few years has been home runs. Why? Because it's a one-on-one statistic. (A really great hitter only has to beat one other guy, the pitcher, and pitching has always been a specialty position where no team could afford weakness.)

Watch an NBA Classic game on NBA tv from the 70's. Notice how many half-court passes they throw? People haven't forgotten to throw them now, they just know that some 6-11 small forward with superhuman speed is going to intercept it.

Nobody realizes how good defense has become from 1-12 because there are precious few statistics to document it.
 
#94 ·
Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
Let's ask a different (but related) question: name for me a team sport that's actually seen an INCREASE in scoring over a 30 year span. I doubt you can.

Whether you are talking baseball or basketball, the natural evolution is to have some all-star studs in the earlier years of the sport and some really, really terrible players placed with them. The all-stars completely abuse other teams' terrible players, resulting in Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain-like dominance. You get hundred point games and RBI records.

As a league matures, it grows in popularity and the pool of talent grows with it. There may not be a lot more all-star studs, but there are far more pretty darned good players attracted to the game. Teams can play better defense because they no longer have to field really aweful players. All star studs no longer can completely abuse the really bad players, and scoring predictably falls.

The only major MLB record that's been fought over in the past few years has been home runs. Why? Because it's a one-on-one statistic. (A really great hitter only has to beat one other guy, the pitcher, and pitching has always been a specialty position where no team could afford weakness.)

Watch an NBA Classic game on NBA tv from the 70's. Notice how many half-court passes they throw? People haven't forgotten to throw them now, they just know that some 6-11 small forward with superhuman speed is going to intercept it.

Nobody realizes how good defense has become from 1-12 because there are precious few statistics to document it.
Baseball but is all steroids.
 
#95 ·
Uh huh, is so true that NBC gave up the league in favor of Arena football and bull riding! There are half LESS network television games than last year, the all-star game had to be put on cable for the first time EVER, ratings, image and popularity overall continue to drop, the Finals are breaking RECORDS for low ratings, kids prefer to wear retro Alex English and Jamaal Wilkes jersey's instead of the present "stars" and by this time next year freakin NASCAR will take the NBA's place as the fourth most popular league.

Those my friends are the FACTS!!! In the late 80's early 90's the NBA was the HOTTEST league around, NCAA basketball was on par with College Football and superstars like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan were thranscendant stars.

I mean if what you guys say is true, the NBA would be in the midst of new Golden Age.

Guess what? It's NOT.

Refute that bro's.
 
#96 ·
Those guys came into the league at 20, 21 and 22 ready to kick as! and take names while ENHANCING the quality of the NBA because they,re already seasoned in what competitive basketball is all about.
Actually, I will concede the one point that younger players in certain instances (i.e., when they're forced to play 40 mpg) drag down the quality of play on certain teams temporarily. They drag down the quality of play in the NBA until they get up to speed. (I don't think Minnesota regrets nabbing KG though, nor LA in getting Bryant.)

However, in other instances, like with Jermaine O'Neal, nothing was lost. Portland did the smart thing by bringing him along in practice. Portland probably did a better job of preparing him for life in the NBA than anything Jerm could've had in college. And Portland fielded exciting, competitive teams the entire time.

Or how about the Lakers? Would they have been better off with Kobe not dropping 20 points a game in '98.

Regardless, though, I hardly think the influx of high schoolers outweighs all the arguments I've made for the NBA being more competitive than ever. I'd still like to see somebody refute my numerous points.
 
#97 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
In the late 80's early 90's the NBA was the HOTTEST league around, NCAA basketball was on par with College Football and superstars like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan were thranscendant stars.

I mean if what you guys say is true, the NBA would be in the midst of new Golden Age.

Guess what? It's NOT.

Refute that bro's.
I would think you were sophisticated enough to understand the difference between competition and marketing.

The NBA as it stands now is in a huge marketing slump. The fact is that all the defense is not nearly as fun to watch as the more free flowing game of the 80's. Nobody in the current NBA has that personability that Magic, Bird and Jordan had. And there are far more media choices, with the Internet, play stations, DVD's, and competing sports.

I actually enjoyed 80's baskeball much more than the current version. But I don't mistake it to be superior basketball.
 
#98 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
Yep a 7foot freak that CANNOT play defense, mediocre passer, no power post up game and shoots 46%FG!!! Yeah 80's teams would be shaking at the tought of facing this bulldozers, LOL!

Do you realize that a 36 year old Larry Bird with a shot back put up better numbers than Irk across the board in 1992 ??? Larry Bird was a REAL FREAK!

Also remember, Karl Malone at 6'8, 40 years old, against the supposed "big man, athletic, freakish" heavy west is still putting up 21ppg, 8rebs, 4assts, 2stls on 46%FG!!!

What this man would do to the present suck filled NBA if he was in his prime would be CRIMINMAL! That goes for the entire 80's as well.
who in the 80's could really stop dirk norwitski? really, i mean... he's basically unstoppable NOW, who could stop him back then? Dennis Rodman is one guy who would give Dirk fits but even then he wouldnt be able to alter his shots because at 7 feet, Dirk can get his shot off of anyone, and if you put a center at him, he'd just dribble around him. Dirk would really dominate the 80's.
 
#99 ·
Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!


I would think you were sophisticated enough to understand the difference between competition and marketing.

The NBA as it stands now is in a huge marketing slump. The fact is that all the defense is not nearly as fun to watch as the more free flowing game of the 80's. Nobody in the current NBA has that personability that Magic, Bird and Jordan had. And there are far more media choices, with the Internet, play stations, DVD's, and competing sports.

I actually enjoyed 80's baskeball much more than the current version. But I don't mistake it to be superior basketball.
So True.
The Detroit Pistons today are one of the Best teams in the league, but not many would pay to see them. Who does? besides Piston fans? Does that mean that the Pistons arent a good team? no. Just that their style of hard-nosed DEFENSE isnt very fun to watch. How about the '99 Knicks and Heat? same thing... slow, half-court teams who grind it out all all game with hard-nosed DEFENSE and half-court offense. Not very fun teams to watch... does that mean their Quality of play is any less then a team that is FUN TO WATCH? no.

'FUN to Watch' and Quality basketball are not the same thing.

The last 11 NBA championships were won by teams with 'Dominant Superstars'. Most Notably Michael Jordan and Shaquille Oneal. The rest of the league realized that they werent going to win a championship unless they found a way to stop these Dominating Superstars. for example... The Blazers traded a young up and coming star for a veteran in Dale Davis to help them stop Shaquille Oneal in their quest for a title. The Sacramento Kings traded for Doug Cristie and his ugly jumpshot so he could stop the leagues top shooting guards from totally dominating in games. most notably Kobe Bryant.

Teams realized that the Pat Reiley Knicks and the Detroit Pistons were the teams who gave the Perrenial Champion Chicago Bulls the most trouble,, especially in the playoffs. These teams decided that if they wanted to get through the Bulls, they had to improve defensively. The shift in Fast-paced basketball to defensive half-court teams really started during the middle of the Bulls Dynasty, teams adjusted to what Jordan was giving them, and now they're adjusting to what Shaq is giving them. Defense wins Championships and its sooo true.

so i agree with you that Fun Basketball isnt neccesarily Better Basketball. Fun basketball gets the Ratings, its not Rocket science.
 
#100 ·
Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
The greatest, dirtiest, roughest and most intimidating defensive team of all time came from that era in the Bad Boy Pistons and the lowest ppg they EVER allowed was 99!!! back in 1989 so that tells you a lot about how powerfull the offenses were.

Hell the 91 Bulls had AWESOME defense and they allowed 101ppg!!!

Now if those 2 teams, who were better defensively than ANY team now a days (they could also score above 100) couldn't or barely kept teams below 100 points it tells me that something else is going on besides "More sophisticated" defenses.

So to me defenses didn't get that much better, offenses became EASIER to stop. Yo can thank expansion and the salary cap for that.
DEFENSE IS NOT DEFINED BY PPG!
 
#101 ·
I'm sorry bro, but the 1999 Knicks have to be one the WORST teams that has made it to the Finals in the history of the NBA.

It's not about defense or offense, that team BLEW!!!

I think any team that fails to score at LEAST 97ppg should be fined 1 million dollars and taken away a first round pick !!!

I bet the house that EVERYBODY would start playing like the Mavs if that were to happen.

NOBODY wants to watch Knicks/Heat, slow it down, low scoring, bad shooting, no flowing, foul fest games that end in 82-75 scores. NOBODY!!!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top