defense: 80s vs today

[Showtime84']

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

[Bball_Doctor]

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.

[mook]

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.

[Bball_Doctor]

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.

[Showtime84']

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.

[mook]

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.

[mook]

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.

[JOHNNY_BRAVisimO]

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.

[JOHNNY_BRAVisimO]

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.

[I'm Just Saying]

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!

[Showtime84']

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!!!

[JOHNNY_BRAVisimO]

Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
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!!!

Like i said, Fun dosent neccasarily mean BETTER basketball. The Detroit Pistons of Today are Worst Offensively then the '99 Knicks, does that mean Detroit is a Worst team? no. Its not all about the sexy Showtime Basketball, scoring more points isnt everything.

[Showtime84']

No it's not everything but the truly great teams can combine BOTH, 80's Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, Pistons, Lakers along with the 90's Bulls did it.

It's ok to play great defense as long as you don't neglect the offensive side of the ball like the majority of the league today does.

Talking about the lack of popularity of the present NBA you also have to look at the slow death of NCAA basketball, who had it's golden age at the same time the NBA did (1979-1993).

David Stern knows the pivotal role the NCAA plays on the popularity of the NBA and that's why he will put in the 20 year old age limit in the coming future. Thank God!

[SkywalkerAC]

Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
No it's not everything but the truly great teams can combine BOTH, 80's Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, Pistons, Lakers along with the 90's Bulls did it.

It's ok to play great defense as long as you don't neglect the offensive side of the ball like the majority of the league today does.

Talking about the lack of popularity of the present NBA you also have to look at the slow death of NCAA basketball, who had it's golden age at the same time the NBA did (1979-1993).

David Stern knows the pivotal role the NCAA plays on the popularity of the NBA and that's why he will put in the 20 year old age limit in the coming future. Thank God!

at this point you're basically admitting that the league concentrates more on defense. this combined with the added length and athleticism has to result in at least marginally better defense, on average, throughout the league. we're not talking about the defense of the best teams in the league or the best defensive team. the argument is about overall defense.

on a side note, the influx of foreign players is really going to help the NCAA hold onto its players for a longer period.

[buduan]

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




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

I could debate with you all day. But I just want to point out there is NO CHANCE IN HE!! the current Lakers could beat the 80's Lakers. NO CHANCE.

You say that there is no answer for Shaq or Kobe? I say there is no anwer for Magic or Worthy. The 80's team is FAR more deeper than this current team. Even the 2000 or 2001 Lakers.

Magic would find a way to beat these guys.