Defense Wins Championships, Damnit!

I continue to think the San Antonio Spurs are being oddly underestimated. Yes, yes, they're "only" at a .660 winning percentage. Yes, they're scheduled for the fourth seed behind Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah. Yes, it's even true that "With Yao, Houston could potentially bump San Antonio down to No. 3 in the All-Texas Standings, stunning as that sounds." That said, look at the point differentials. Dallas is 7.4, Phoenix and San Antonio are both 7.3, Houston is 5.6, is 2.9.

Obviously, that's a classic quant argument and I do expect sportswriters to ignore point differential in favor of crude W-L. The weird thing is that all the other sportswriterly considerations also point in favor of adopting a forgiving attitude toward San Antonio's record; this is a classic curmudgeon's team, full of Veteran Leadership, featuring an NBA Legend, a the Best Coach, the Defense, Robert Horry, etc. Plus, it's an odd numbered year which, on its own terms, overwhelmingly favors the Spurs. I'm not saying I'd take an even-odds bet that San Antonio will win it all (odds are they'll need to beat Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix to get to the Finals, which is, um, hard to do) but I don't understand writing them off, either. People remember the way the Suns ran away with the 2004-2005 regular season (Joe Johnson was the fourth guy on that team), right?

Comments

The West has 5 excellent teams. The problem is that the 4th and 5th seeds are going to have a much harder time in the first round than the 1st - 3rd seeds. So that gives the 1st through 3rd seeds a great advantage in getting to the finals. I mean, let's say that Utah plays the Lakers in the first round and SA plays Houston. Of Utah, SA, and Houston, which of those teams has the best chance of getting to the Finals? Clearly Utah, even if you think that SA and Houston are better teams.

Posted by Al | February 20, 2007 10:20 AM

The West has six excellent teams, Al; it's just that one of them has been hammered by injury. I don't think anyone's looking forward to the Lakers in the playoffs if they get healthy. And none of the six teams seems like a juggernaut; I wouldn't be surprised to see any of them lose to one of the other six in the playoffs.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2007 10:26 AM

"Damnit" isn't in the dictionary...

Posted by MJ | February 20, 2007 11:14 AM

so will the WCC be the real finals this year (unless of course bennett salvatore is reffing the so-called finals)?

Posted by looj | February 20, 2007 11:51 AM

the '72-'73 knicks finished 11 games behind the celtics, and yet i never doubted for one second that entire season that they were going to win it all (indeed, i made a lot of money by taking the knicks against the field in the postseason with various fellow undergrads).

not that i'm saying that today's spurs are that year's knicks, nor that there isn't plenty of reason to doubt the spurs will win it all, but they remain one of the 3 teams in the west that i think have very realistic chances to emerge on top (a category in which i do not include the rockets, the jazz, or the lakers).

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 11:56 AM

i realize that i got distracted in looking up the knicks record: i meant to note that there are some pretty fair comparabilities between those knicks and these spurs before moving on to comment that they're not the same team....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 11:57 AM

There is a very good chance that this year's Mavericks will have a better W-L record than any of Larry Bird's Celtic teams, against arguably tougher competition in a generally tougher era.

So we will fairly say that as a team these Mavericks are better than the 80s Celtica, but which players on the Mavericks are better than their Celtic equivalents? Hmm...

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 12:02 PM

but which players on the Mavericks are better than their Celtic equivalents? Hmm...

Should I really outrage Celtic fans by arguing that Dirk > Bird?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 20, 2007 12:22 PM

dude, i am not even a celtics fan, but that suggestion knocks silly my entire sense of world order. bird could shoot, pass, rebound, steal, and bring seriously unparelled mojo to the court. dirk has a lethal shot but his defense, rebounding, passing, and mojo-ness range from alright to piss-poor.

as a spurs fan, i agree that the spurs are not as far back as they appear. but i watch every damn spurs game and I have to admit that they are misssing a certain spark at the end of games that in previous years has set them apart. The on-the-court reason for this appears to be the lack of a big dummy to stand by duncan and block some shots and grab rebounds and play great position defense. having two pillars down below has allowed washups like horry, ferry, and finley to appear more important than they are because they got getter looks on offense and could play more aggresively on defense within pop's system that forces players to go baseline into the bigs or shoot crappy mid-rangers. Elson and Oberto are okay but just not the type players that have worked so well in the system. the result is that in the last five minutes (pretty much the only minutes that matter in an important playoff game) teams are getting shots and stops they didn't previosly get.

That said, the spurs WILL go through houston, phoenix and dallas like a southwest airlines jet on a friends fly free day. apologies for the texas humor.

Posted by MP | February 20, 2007 12:46 PM

If Bill Simmons ever hears about it, he may have a conniption fit.

Posted by mpowell | February 20, 2007 12:46 PM

Sweet jeebus. I grew up HATING Bird, but Dirk isn't anywhere close to Bird.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2007 12:47 PM

Just because the Spurs have won championships in odd years before doesn't mean they're any more likely to win one now just because it's an odd year...

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 20, 2007 12:56 PM

Should I really outrage Celtic fans by arguing that Dirk > Bird?

Sure, if you want to get laughed at. A few years ago on TNT, they had a running series of "old school/new school" little bits between Magic and Justin Timberlake (not surprisingly, it was pretty lame). Usually they would joke around about things, but when they had the Dirk vs. Bird installment, with Timberlake arguing on Dirk's behalf, the rest of the studio crew reacted with amazement that anyone would even think to make that argument. They weren't even laughing about it.

Posted by Haggai | February 20, 2007 12:57 PM

The Suns are better than they were in 04-05. Joe Johnson's good, but overall, a rotation of Nash, Amare, Marion, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa and Kurt Thomas (if he's healthy) kicks the crap out of Nash, Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson and Jim Jackson. It's hard to not committ the pundit's fallacy here -- I really want the Suns to win, as all decent people should -- I think this is their best shot. I'd put them right up with Dallas as the favorites at this point.

San Antonio is going to get slightly worse every year, because every important player other than Manu and Mr. Longoria is past his prime.

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 1:11 PM

since the bird/dirk issue has already been well-handled, let's turn to the other point bob is attempting to make.

first off, let's wait until, you know, the season is over before we start boasting about the mavs season record, doncha think?

that said, i'd like to know who is arguing that the competition is tougher today than in the '80s? no one i know, although perhaps my perspective is limited.

finally, the point of my homely little knicks anecdote is a fairly standard one: the regular season isn't the playoffs. the 68-win bulls weren't a great team because they won 68 games: they were a great team because they won a title after winning 68 games.

as our friend haggai will tell you, the pistons had one of the very best regular season records in history last year, and all it meant was...well, it didn't mean anything as far as their being one of the greatest teams of all time....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 1:12 PM

In terms of *style*, Dirk/Bird has I think become reasonably valid; a few years ago, it was more shallow: "tall, blond, goofy, sharpshooting," whereas Dirk's offensive game is much more complete and crafty now. In terms of quality...not really.

But the idea that today's league is tougher than the 80s...definitely, ahem, arguable. I'd say Dallas is one of the few teams - maybe the only one - in the league now with depth comparable to a bunch of teams in the 80s.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 1:13 PM

I would argue that the competition is heavier today than in the '80s, from top to bottom, but the competition at the very top was tougher in the '80s. In other words, the league is more balanced. You've got a much bigger pool of guys to choose from, so there are fewer stiffs on NBA rosters. But there are no truly awesome teams like there were in the '80s.

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 1:18 PM

too many steves -

You may be right there, although it's fallout from one of my Three or Four Great and Idiosyncratic NBA Obsessions that I believe Shaq is single handedly resopnsible for keeping a great many stiffs employed in the NBA through the late 90s and early 00s.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 1:24 PM

i see, btw, that i was having a memory lapse, and i should have been referecning the bulls 72 and 89 win seasons, not 68 (how quickly they forget? or how unimportant is the regular season victory record? you decide!).

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 1:25 PM

ok, for heaven's sake, 69, not 89. i need to stop now....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 1:26 PM

Howard,
first off, let's wait until, you know, the season is over before we start boasting about the mavs season record, doncha think?

Well of course we have to wait until the end of the season to say for sure. But it is worth noting that given we now know that Dallas' 0-4 start to the season was clearly a fluke, there is good reason to believe that the Mavs will be stronger in the 2nd half of the season than they were in the first.

Posted by Mark Adams | February 20, 2007 2:43 PM

Okay, okay maybe Dirk !> Bird, especially in the era when nobody played defense and everynody looked like Oscar.

Then I guess that means Howard > McHale. :)

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 3:38 PM

And it isn't as if the Mav's haven't done anything in the playoffs. This is the same team, only better. They choked in the Finals, but the Celtis only won once against LA in 4 tries.

My point is, of course, that if the Mavs supposedly don't start a single player comparable to the 80s Celts roster, which had some depth...well isn't there something wrong with this picture? If team defense is so improved over the 80s, then maybe the current players need a more careful comparison, and maybe those flashy stats-laden 80s studs are a little over-rated.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 3:53 PM

I don't think anyone is saying "the Mavs supposedly don't start a single player comparable to the 80s Celts roster" - I'd take any of the Mavs starters over Rick Carlisle, for example.

But seriously; Stackhouse and Howard are both arguably better than, say, Danny Ainge, and Dirk at least is definitely better than the three guys in that starting lineup not named "Bird and McHale". (And he's not close to done with his career, yet.) But by and large, I'd rather have Parish over Dampier/Diop, Bird over Dirk, McHale over Howard, etc., etc.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 4:02 PM

All this Rockets dissin!

Defense wins championships. Who has the best defense in the NBA?

If TMac keeps up the intensity level after Yao returns I'd give the Rockets a good chance of advancing. And they've beaten the Spurs twice in SA this year with TMac missing in one game and Yao in the other.

No respect I tell ya.

Posted by Davebo | February 20, 2007 4:18 PM

Shoot pulled out me old NBA books and 1985-86, Celtics won 67, and Philadelphia, the 3rd best team in the East, won 54.

Malone, Barkley, Erving, Cheek, McAdoo.

Mavs must be doing it with smoke & mirrors, or maybe it's all Avery.

Course in 1985-86, not one team held the opposition under 104 pts. That would be like 23rd now. I remember those good old days, when pudgy 6'5" Mark Aguirre was a low-post threat. Averaged 23 pts (Bird 26) on 50 percent shooting.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 4:28 PM

Melvin Ely will make a difference on that team because he shores up their one weak point - an offensive post threat other than Duncan. Tim will also help mask Ely's generally average play on the defensive end. The Spurs will be much more dangerous with Tim on the high post, Mel on the low post, and Parker or Manu penetrating. Not that Ely will probably play full-time, but when he's out there the Spurs should be a very potent offensive unit.

Posted by Jimm | February 20, 2007 4:41 PM

this year, the league seems like a weird roshambo unstable hierarchy. that is, just like everyone else, the spurs have certain teams they can beat (detroit, likely miami), others that can give them fits. in many years, there seems to be a dominant team you expect to beat all comers, even if they ultiamtely don't. not so this year. that is, i'm not sure that, even if dallas can get by phoenix, they can necessarily beat the lakers or houston or miami or whatever.

Posted by dj superflat | February 20, 2007 5:05 PM

I love Magic and Bird, but the league is so much better now. Those teams used to score 110 points a game, because Chuck Daly and Phil Jackson hadn't yet come around to teach the league how to coach defense.

When they did, Daly took the Lakers to 7 games before losing, then turned around and swept them the next year, and then repeated the following year. Then Phil took over, dropped the Lakers in 5 games in the Finals en route to 6 championships in 8 years. And Daly's teams became the first successful teams in years to consistently hold their opponents under 100 a game; Jackson's teams got their opponents' totals down closer to 90!

Magic and Bird, great as they were, would have real difficulty dominating the offense, scoring, and passing against even the AVERAGE modern NBA defense. Against a defense such as the Spurs', it would be all the more difficult.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2007 5:17 PM

Mark, Dallas has an excellent chance to win the title, and of course their start was a fluke. i'm not sure what more there is to say about them right now (i mean, bob's a great guy, but he was puffing on his victory cigar in the finals last year after game 1) from an "all-time" standpoint.

and bob, i'm not sure what your point is here: the pistons won a title only moments ago without a single player whom we could consider an all-time great and the spurs have won a couple with only duncan as an all-timer; mark aguirre was an outstanding low-post threat; teams ran more in the '80s, hence average scores were higher (hell, i'm pretty sure the russell/kc jones/satch sanders celtics - in short, 3 all-time defensive players - never averaged giving up under 100 points a game because they were a fast break team); and great teams are greater than the sum of their parts.

and for those underrating robert parish, it would be nice to see a matchup of the '96-'97 mavericks and the '85-'86 celts; i'm pretty confident of who would take 4 out of 7....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 5:24 PM

Dilan, you were writing your 5:17 while i was writing my 5:24, so let me pursue the point here.

low scoring totals are partly a function of defense but they are also a function of pace. Red Holzman taught us all that (including his player, phil jackson) when the knicks consistently held people in the '90s, but that doesn't mean that i think that red's knicks (my all-time favorite team, let me be clear) were inherently better than russell's celtics on defense. if everyone in the nba played at phoenix sun tempo, then we wouldn't see scores in the 90s very often, but there would still be good defensive teams.

and yes, bird and magic would be great today, as would oscar and jerry, frazier and sam jones, gus johnson and rick barry, and so on....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 5:28 PM

Unless Yao manages to fuck everything up, I'd take the Rockets over the Mavs. I can't sort Phoenix--Amare can be such a force, and Phoenix can still lose. But I'm not that impressed by the Mavs; I don't see them going through.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2007 6:01 PM

somecallmetim, i'm trying to remember any instances of a key injured player coming back as late in the year as yao will and the team going on to win the title. none is coming to mind, which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but more typically, it is too late in the season for teams to readjust, especially given how major an adjustment the rockets already have gone through.

(i love coach van gundy, btw, so i'd be happy to be wrong, but even with a healthy yao and t-mac - and let's not forget his back can go at any time - i don't quite see a championship squad there....)

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 6:05 PM

I like the Rockets too, but they've never even won a playoff series with McGrady and Yao. You want them to suddenly vault into the Finals? (OK, I know New Jersey did that a few years ago...)

Posted by next big thing | February 20, 2007 6:18 PM

I'd like to make an argument for my Jazz... but I can't even make sense of their current record.

Posted by Bill Gardner | February 20, 2007 6:27 PM

With the acquisition of Eddie Jones, the defending NBA Champs have extraordinary depth. Miami's second string includes 4 former All-Stars (all of whom average over 15 ppg for their career), 3 former NBA All-Defensive players, 2 former NBA Defensive Players of the Year, and the reigning 3 point champion. Miami is without a doubt the deepest team in the league right now.

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2007 6:35 PM

"When they did, Daly took the Lakers to 7 games before losing, then turned around and swept them the next year. . ."

Of course both Magic and Byron Scott pulled hamstrings and didn't play that series. I'd bet the Lakers would have taken it had that not happened.

We've had this discussion before about the Spurs. They are still a top team but just don't have enough athleticism on defense or consitent enough 3-point shooting to win a series against the likes of Dallas or Phoenix.

Somebody above mentioned Dirk not being in Bird's class as a rebounder. I beg to differ, Dirk is always among the league leaders getting 9+ and most of those on the defensive end since he almost never posts up or goes inside (unlike Bird). I'm not saying that Dirk is better than Larry but it's not because Larry was a better rebounder.

Posted by Sigh | February 20, 2007 6:49 PM

"With the acquisition of Eddie Jones, the defending NBA Champs have extraordinary depth. Miami's second string includes 4 former All-Stars (all of whom average over 15 ppg for their career), 3 former NBA All-Defensive players, 2 former NBA Defensive Players of the Year, and the reigning 3 point champion. Miami is without a doubt the deepest team in the league right now. "

Wouldn't it be great to have all your players in the prime of their careers?

This is nonsense. Eddie Jones is a pale shadow of the player who made all-star and all defensive teams. Cripes, he was giving up time to Dahnte Jones in Memphis earlier this season. Miami is walking on eggshells relying on old, injury prone guys (Shaq, Jones), a young, untested shooter and the chance that the refs comprise the board of the Dwayne Wade fanclub again. I would put their chances of repeating at under 10%.

Posted by Sigh | February 20, 2007 6:56 PM

"With the acquisition of Eddie Jones, the defending NBA Champs have extraordinary depth. Miami's second string includes 4 former All-Stars (all of whom average over 15 ppg for their career), 3 former NBA All-Defensive players, 2 former NBA Defensive Players of the Year, and the reigning 3 point champion. Miami is without a doubt the deepest team in the league right now."

Are you kidding me? There's a reason these guys are *former* stars. Their career averages don't have a damn thing to do with what they're doing now. Gary Payton should have retired when he left Seattle. Antoine Walker should have retired when he left Kentucky.

The Mavs depth is just ridiculous. They could have a legit 10-man rotation. Stackhouse, Anthony Johnson, Diop, Buckner, Croshere -- those guys all come off the bench. They could take the Heat's creaky old men any day.

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 6:59 PM

"I don't understand writing them off."

I don't think anyone is writing them off. Saying they are the third most likely team to win the West isn't writing them off. It's just saying Dallas and Phoenix are more likely to win the West than they are.

And that's an entirely correct conclusion.

"I continue to think the San Antonio Spurs are being oddly underestimated."

Given the TradeSports odds, I'd say the Spurs are being overestimated, not underestimated.

Posted by Petey | February 20, 2007 7:07 PM

"Obviously, that's a classic quant argument and I do expect sportswriters to ignore point differential in favor of crude W-L."

I think you'd find that crude W-L is a far better predictor of playoff success than point differential.

Or, in other words, W-L is the real classic quant argument.

Posted by Petey | February 20, 2007 7:09 PM

too many steves, i agree with your general point about "former" stars, but (although my fading memory can't place the precise moments) there were 2 critical shots that one g. payton made last year in the finals without which the heat might have lost....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 7:30 PM

"and bob, i'm not sure what your point is here"

Dilan Esper makes most of my point at 5:17.

I listed the 86 Sixers because I think most people would take any of those players, from a team that won 54 games and was third in the conference, over all the Mavericks save one. You would all take Erving or Barkley or Malone over Nowitzki. The "Classic Era" players are vastly, vastly overrrated.

I think you can fairly compare players from the mid-80s to todays players by simply subtracting 20% from their stats, the difference in league scoring. Bird in 1986 averaged 26 so adjust to 21 ppg. Jesus no, Mark Aguirre wasn't a great low-post player. As soon as the Mav's picked up Perkins, Schrempf, and Tarpley we saw just how weak Aguirre was.

Nobody played defense So a punk like Aguirre looks real flashy on highlight reels. At his peak he was compared to Bird, passing out of the post, 3-pters, etc.

Dirk Nowitzki is clearly a superior scorer, shooter, rebounder, and overall player than Larry Bird. And I am honestly not sure about the other Mavs like Howard and Dampier.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 7:41 PM

Larry Bird in 1986 averaged 9.8 rebounds when his team was allowing 91 field goal attempts per game.

Dirk Nowitzki is averaging 9.4 on a team that allows 79 shots per game.

Who is the better rebounder?

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 7:53 PM

Sorry, misremembered. the Mavs are allowing 76 attempts, not 79. Very near the top.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 7:55 PM

And it is not about "tempo" Jesus, watch a basketball game. The first rule of defense with a shot clock is making it very difficult to get a good shot off, making your opponent take a chancy shot with 4 seconds left on the clock.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 8:08 PM

well, bob, as you already saw, i don't agree with dilan, so i guess i don't agree with you either, whether it's about mark aguirre in the low post (or whether he was compared to larry bird at his peak: no he frickin' was not) or about "nobody" playing defense in the '80s (which will come as a great shock to michael cooper, joe dumars, ac green, patrick ewing, bobby jones, sidney moncrief, dennis johnson, hakeem olajuwon, kevin mchale, buck williams, dennis rodman, and others whom i'm not thinking of), but most importantly, about whether it matters whether i'd rather have charles barkley or dirk nowitzki when it comes to whether the mid'80s sixers were or were not a better team than the current mavs.

btw, over the past 5 years, dirk has finished third, third, tenth, seventh, and eighth in the MVP voting: shouldn't he at least have to win one such award before you start declaring him better than a guy who won 3 straight?

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 8:10 PM

Nobody played defense

And nobody plays defense today. You can't even hand-check a guard these days. By '86, Erving and Malone must have been old. But I would absolutely take a similarly aged Malone or Barkley over Dirk. Cripes, I'd take either over Dirk plus any other Mav you wanted to include.

Dirk's a punk, and he's not getting even one ring, let alone three.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2007 8:10 PM

bob, now your arguments are really getting problematic: would you care to tell us who are the two rebounders on the mavs who are as good at rebounding as robert parish and kevin mchale? (frankly, i don't really care if nowitzki is a better rebounder, since rebounding, while part of the bird package, wasn't the most imporant part by a longshot, but since you insist....as bill james told us long ago, if we just went by putout numbers, richie ashburn was a better center fielder than willie mays, but we can't just go by putout numbers.)

as for the notion that tempo isn't important: words fail me. you're now telling me that the russell celtics didn't know how to play defense. please.

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 8:15 PM

somecallmetim reminds me: back in the '60s, they called fouls on all kinds of stuff that is allowed on defense today, so you really did have to play defense with your feet.

which isn't to say that the overall level of defense in the '60s was as good as today's is, but it does say that part of what you call better defense is simply a change in what the rules and the refs will accept....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 8:17 PM

Hey Matt, defense may win championships, but apparently it gets no respect. Even so called serious basketall fans are more impressed with flash, dazzle, over-the-head windmill slamdunks, I guess.

You know, saying all all those 80s basketball players are so much better than today's players doesn't make a whole lot of fucking sense, folks.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 8:22 PM

"Dirk Nowitzki is clearly a superior scorer, shooter, rebounder, and overall player than Larry Bird. And I am honestly not sure about the other Mavs like Howard and Dampier."

So you think maybe Howard and Dampier are better than Larry Bird, too?

I want to think you're not serious with this Dirk > Bird argument. You're not serious, right? This is Larry fucking Bird we're talking about.

I happen to agree that the defense generally sucked in the '80s, though. And back in the Russell days, the game was so different it's hard to even compare. Those dudes had never had anyone try to block their shot before -- of course Russell ate them alive.

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 8:24 PM

They could have a legit 10-man rotation. Stackhouse, Anthony Johnson, Diop, Buckner, Croshere -- those guys all come off the bench.

Oh come on, now. Diop, Buckner, and Croshere haven't averaged 10 ppg combined over their careers, and it's not like these guys are spring chickens. I'll take former All-Stars over never was a starter anyday.

Eddie Jones gives Miami tremendous flexibility in their matchups. He can play the 2 or the 3, stroke the deep ball, and cover just about anybody man to man (think Billups or Prince). He's going to get a lot of open looks with Shaq in the middle (hopefully at the expense of 'Toine).

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2007 8:24 PM

they called fouls on all kinds of stuff that is allowed on defense today,

I wasn't around back then, but I assume that the refs also called violations for things on offense like carries that don't get called today.

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2007 8:30 PM

"So you think maybe Howard and Dampier are better than Larry Bird, too?"

They may be comparable to McHale & Parrish, tho. Really sucks that a whole generation of average schmucks waltz into the HoF because of a league acceptance of "Matador" rules.

I was there it was fun. Hell I remember UNLV in the early 70s, when 40 minute college games could approach 250 total points.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 8:32 PM

Just Karl, we'll start with you: damn straight they called walking, and palming, and all kinds of things they barely ever call anymore (indeed, one way to recognize the old-timers is how much they complain about how often michael walked).

as i noted way upthread, the red holzman knicks are my all-time favorites, but i missed the 7th game of the '70 finals in order to participate in an anti-cambodia-invasion rally (the willis reed game). a few years ago, i finally saw a tape of the game, and i tell you, the first conclusion i drew was if they called fouls today the way they called fouls back then, every single player down to the 12th man would foul out of every game until they adjusted.

as for bob, i really don't know what bug is up his butt about this matter: apparently, everyone from george mikan to charles barkley has a phony reputation, and is nowhere comparable to anyone playing today. sheesh.

great players are great players: the style of play may change, the way the refs call the game may change, but great players adapt. russ would still be a defensive monster; wilt would still be an offensive monster; cousy could still lead a fast break; walt frazier could still pick your pocket; dennis rodman would still inhale rebounds; kevin mchale could still score in a variety of ways in the low post; and so on.

and it works the other way: kobe bryant and dwayne wade and shaquille and duncan and dirk and
... the other current stars would be stars in earlier eras.

and it is simply not frickin' true that the league, in the '80s, "accepted 'matador' rules." i have no idea what gives bob such an impression - conceivably he confuses that the median defender of 2007 is almost certainly better than the median defender of 1982 (i'm simply using a quarter century) with everyone. or something. who knows, really, until he tells us something more useful than how unlv, a college team, played in the early '70s, about as irrelevant to the argument as you could imagine. i mean, hell, ucla used to run a full-court press in the mid-'60s that was a helluva lot of fun to watch, but i wouldn't use that to describe professional defense in the mid-'60s....

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 9:42 PM

"and it is simply not frickin' true that the league, in the '80s"

howard, I have provided evidence above. The best defense in 1986 allowed 104.3 points per game, the worst allowed 116.9. The best defense today allows 90.3 ppg, the worst 107.5.

Yet you want to tell the Bird's 1986 25 ppg in 1986 is so much better than Dirk's 25 ppg this year.

I also provided evidence on rebounds, that Dirk 's 9.4 reb with 76 opp attempts I guess is worse than Bird's 9.8 with 91 opp attempts. Dirk is also shhotind around 50% in a league that averages less than 45%, whereas Bird shot 50% in a league that averaged around 50% shooting.

But Bird is just better, because he's fucking Larry Bird.

I tell you what if Dirk is just a punk, somone will have to explain to me how Dallas wins 67-68 games. Now either the rest of his team and coaches is far superior to any 80s equivalents, or the modern league just completely sucks.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 9:57 PM

Summation:

1) Todays players are at least no worse, and probably better than the players of the 80s

2) Teams play much better team defense than in the 80s.

3) So any player with stats roughly comparable to an 80s players stats is certainly better than that 80s player.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 10:09 PM

"But Bird is just better, because he's fucking Larry Bird."

I couldn't have said it any better myself. He's fucking Larry Bird, and Dirk isn't.

(by the way, "best defense" is not the same as "gives up the least points," and "worst defense" does not equal "gives us the most points")

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 10:10 PM

"by the way, "best defense" is not the same as "gives up the least points," and "worst defense" does not equal "gives us the most points"

Whatever. I been all over the Yahoo stat pages today, lookin at all the columns, and Dallas is #3 on points, but good enough on other factors like shots allowed and rebounding to arguably be the best defense in the league.

They also fucking win. McGrady found out in the 2nd half in Houston in the last game, when Dallas made him their bitch.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 10:18 PM

But Bird is just better, because he's fucking Larry Bird.

Now you're getting the hang of this. Call us back when Dirk wins his first championship or MVP.

Posted by Al | February 20, 2007 10:22 PM

that Houston game is a typical example. McGrady scores 27 on 9/21, Dirk 26 on 12/22. I forget exactly but McGrady was like 7/9 in the first half, and 2/12 in the second. Dirk hits 2 3s in clutch time to win the game, and Dirk is not shooting a lot of 3s anymore

But McGrady is the stud, and Nowitzki is the punk.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 10:28 PM

"Call us back when Dirk wins his first championship or MVP."

MVP's. Shit, Nash is gonna win another one, on flash and dazzle. Winning means shit for highlight fans.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 10:30 PM

Yeah, the Suns never win any games. And who is saying that McGrady is better than Dirk? Other than the voices in your head?

Posted by too many steves | February 20, 2007 10:35 PM

I disagree there is better defense today than the 80s. The players back then had better fundamentals and played smarter team defense, and were also able to hand check. In today's game, there is very little defense going on, and any lack of scoring is really more a function of offensive ineptitude in the team concept, a lot of this coming from the emphasis on younger, more athletic, less experienced, with fewer fundamentals style players, along with expansion.

Posted by Jimm | February 20, 2007 10:54 PM

"and it is simply not frickin' true that the league, in the '80s, "accepted 'matador' rules"

Dallas Mavericks 1986, field goal percentages

Aguirre 503
Blackman 514
Perkins 503
Vincent 481 6'5" swingman :) 14 ppg
Harper 534
Davis 532
Donaldson 558-568 obtained durng season
Kurt Nimphius :) 514

Team record 44-38, Dallas took Utah in 4, took the Lakers to 6 games in semifinals

This is disgusting. This is Larry Bird's NBA.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 20, 2007 10:57 PM

bob, i have no idea what has set off this massive sense of victimhood you feel about dirk not getting credit for being the greatest forward ever, or for us not jumping up and saluting the mavericks when they haven't won a damned thing.

points allowed isn't without relevance, but of greater relevance are things like opposition shooting percentage, opposition points-per-shot-attempt, and ability to shut down the opposing team down the stretch of a tight game, none of which is demonstrated by pure scoring totals.

despite your willfulness about it, tempo does matter: teams that play set-up offense and try, as a matter of strategy, to run 20 seconds off the shot clock per possession (hello there, red holzman knicks) are reducing the total number of possessions per game; teams that run a fast break offense (hello there, phoenix suns or russell or heinsohn celts) maximize the total number of possessions per game, thereby increasing scoring opportunities. to say that the team that reduces the number of possessions per game is inherently the better defensive team just because opposition scoring is lower isn't good analysis.

and that's without even getting into the matter of allowable contact: don't get me wrong, i was a big fan of the ewing knicks, but as i noted earlier, part of how they kept scoring down was through physical contact that in different eras of the NBA would have led to continuous foul-outs. does that mean that just because the riley/van gundy knicks routinely held teams in the 90s, they were among the greatest defensive teams in nba history?

i do believe that the median defensive player in the nba today is the best he's ever been, because more emphasis is placed on defense in the league in general than was ever the case, but that's not the same as saying that no one ever played defense before the dallas mavericks under avery johnson.

as for larry fucking bird, he is a legend because he came into the league as a superior all-roudn talent and kept improving: he was an outstanding passer, shooter, rebounder, team (although not man) defender, and clutch player (one of the 3 greatest clutch shooters in nba history, in my mind, along with jerry west and michael jordan, with walt frazier a close fourth). he understood the attributes of his teammates and worked to make the most of them (for example, he often made it a point to run a few pick-and-rolls with parish early in a game to get robert on the scoreboard, because he observed that the chief played a better overall game when he scored early). most important, he was possessed with exceptional court vision; like the great zidane in soccer (who i always thought of as the larry bird of soccer), he was physically slow (by league standards) but mentally moved at the speed of light. and he kept working on improving his game.

as a result, he led his team to 3 titles, won 3 consecutive MVPs, and had the complete respect of his peers.

dirk nowitizki is a geat player, but you can't say all of this about him, and as i've already noted, that's reflected in his standings in the mvp voting (and if it were just nash's flash and dazzle, then why didn't dirk at least finish second?). saying that average scores were higher in the '80s, and that's the only reason us blind folk don't understand that nowitki is better than bird, is barroom talk, not analytic insight.

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 11:19 PM

yes, bob, dallas had a very nifty offense in 1986. so fucking what?

Posted by howard | February 20, 2007 11:21 PM

Nash is gonna win another one, on flash and dazzle. Winning means shit for highlight fans.

Great. Ring up when Dirk gets his first championship. Look forward to hearing from you in ten years.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2007 11:26 PM

Dirk does remind me of Bird, and may start reaching his level someday, but it's absurd to make that claim now. Larry Bird is one of the all-time greats, and would dominate today's NBA. Back in the 80s and Larry's day, you had guys with better fundamentals who were also much better shooters than you have today. Teams started focusing on younger, more athletic players with fewer fundamentals and a shadow of the jump shooting ability. Today's players in the NBA are definitely the worst shooting bunch I've ever seen, often missing open looks, when it wasn't common to see missed open looks back in the day. There's some great shooters, but many teams start 2 or 3 guys who don't consistently make open looks, and that wasn't the case back when. There was better team offense back then too resulting in more interior and midrange scoring off ball movement and passes.

If you doubt me, go back and look at the some of the old games, or even the old all-star games. You'll see players who make most of the shots they're supposed to make while today's players are reckless, undisciplined bricklayers in comparison.

Posted by Jimm | February 21, 2007 12:04 AM

"yes, bob, dallas had a very nifty offense in 1986. so fucking what?"

So they really weren't that good, but it was very easy to look good when all you had to was throw the ball at the basket to win games.

Are we really saying (back to 86) that English, Dantley, Wilkins would be 30 point scorers in todays league? If not, then what you saw on the court did not really indicate actual talent or skill.

"Ring up when Dirk gets his first championship"

Cmon, a lot of luck goes into getting a ring. I don't say Nash, or Malone or Stockton, or Ewing aren't HoF's for not getting one.

And it is apparently easier to win a championship than to win 65+ games, based on the number of teams that have done it.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 12:05 AM

Howard, I gave you scoring, shooting, and rebounding relative to the league and style of play, and Dirk this year is better than Bird in 86. Dirk has less assists, but when you are running the offense 80s teams ran, that would make up the 2-3 less per game Dirk gets than Bird.

Dirk almost never posts, and so doesn't pass out of the post. What Dirk does do is get the ball at the top of the key, when everybody knows what is going to happen, and despite everyone knowing and the much superior defenses...just fucking scores.
And then does it again on the next possession. And then again.

Kinda like Michael Jordan.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 12:13 AM

See I read Tim. Tim thinks Amare is twice the player Dirk is, and since Phoenix has 3-4 more players better than anything the Mav's have, Phoenix will eat Dallas alive in the playoffs.

Like the last 3-4 years.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 12:19 AM

McGrady scores 27 on 9/21, Dirk 26 on 12/22. I forget exactly but McGrady was like 7/9 in the first half, and 2/12 in the second. Dirk hits 2 3s in clutch time to win the game, and Dirk is not shooting a lot of 3s anymore

Hmmm. How did Dirk do in his first Finals appearance last year? Oh, right, he sucked.

Posted by Al | February 21, 2007 12:40 AM

bob, since you don't appear to believe that playing style, ref style, or anything else matters one whit, it's impossible to answer your question in a meaningful way, but yes, alex english, adrian dantley, and dominque wilkins would all be dominant scorers today, just as kobe bryant, dirk nowitzki, and carmelo anthony could all score on russell's celts, red holzman's knicks, or anyone else you would care to name. (i mean, elgin baylor dropped, what was it, 61 points on the russell celtics in a finals game, so they really must not ever have played defense, or something....)

the mavs of that period in the '80s were a nifty offensive team with little defense; you put that same bunch on the floor today and they'd be a nifty offensive team with little defense. as i said, go explain to bobby jones and michael cooper that nobody played defense in the '80s; go tell buck williams and sidney moncrief they played matador defense and anyone could throw it in the basket....)

you seem to be confusing numbers and skill, which surprises me: so what if dominique only scored 25 a game today? that would make him right now, by pure coincidence, dirk nowitzki! (on a scoring basis, that is).

you remind me of a great story in jim brosnan's first book, the long season, about frankie frisch. some guys were sitting around the bullpen and bitching about how those old-time players must have been something because after all, both the pitching and the hitting were better in the old days, only you've got in the present: not only are defenses the greatest ever but the scorers must be too! hell, michael jordan averaged 30 points a game against chumps, whereas arenas is averaging nearly that much against the greatest defenders in the history of the human race, so it must be that arenas is better than michael jordan!

jerry west averaged 27.6 against chump change, so we can't even mention him in the same breath as michael redd, can we?

oscar averaged a measly 25.7, so he should eat ray allen's dust.

walt frazier averaged a puny 18.9, with his highest single season 23.2; how can he even dare to be in the same paragraph as joe johnson? hell, ben gordon?!

as for nowitzki in particular, fine, what do i care? maybe he is having as good a season this year as bird had in one of his mvp years; that doesn't make nowitzki larry bird.

finally, since you seem obsessed with 1986, just for fun, i took a look at the shooting percentages of the teams with the 5 worst records in the matador era and at the shooting percentages of the popeye-on-spinach era of 2006. here's what it looks like:

1986 (worst to fifth-worst record)

knicks: .466
pacers: .483
cavs: .490
bulls: .487
warriors: .488

avg: .482

2006 (worst to fifth worst)

trailblazers: .474
knicks: .482
charlotte: .454
hawks: .486
toronto: .500

average: .481

you would think if no one played defense in 1986 and everyone is a defensive master in 2006, we ought to see a little more decline in the shooting percentages of the worst teams in the league that .001, wouldn't you? i would....

Posted by howard | February 21, 2007 12:57 AM

Are we really saying (back to 86) that English, Dantley, Wilkins would be 30 point scorers in todays league?

Definitely.

Phoenix will eat Dallas alive in the playoffs.

With both Nash and Amare healthy, probably.

Posted by Jimm | February 21, 2007 12:58 AM

I should note with the expansion and inferior players but better athletes now in the game, diluting fundamentals and team execution, the guys named above would probably average a few less points due to less points being scored overall, not to mention that without hand checking there are more opportunities for smaller players to score more, so that would take a few points away too. Still, guys like Dantley, Wilkins, English, Bernard King would still be lighting up the league for 25+ easy. Those guys are easily superior at this stage to Zach Randolph, who is a bit of a throwback with his skills in the paint.

Posted by Jimm | February 21, 2007 1:01 AM

ok, one more stat check on bob's favorite season of matador defense, 1986 vs. 2006.

league-wide points-per-shot attempt

1986: 1.228
2006: 1.243

how can that be?

is it really possible that offensive skill has increased precisely as much as defensive skill (i regard the difference between the 2 seasons as inconsequential).

or could it be that bob is just a tad carried away? we report, you decide.

Posted by howard | February 21, 2007 1:06 AM

howard, because today's players don't let Lenny Wilkins get over-rhe-head reverse double spin dunk.

They knock him on his ass.

"or could it be that bob is just a tad carried away? we report, you decide"

how about points per possession? where did you get that stat.

Howard, as I said way up above, what you will first see in an era of good defense is a decline in the number of shots taken; no it is not easy to play defense on the ball when it is in the air. That is not really tempo, that is defense.

It is also about not allowing the fastbreaks. Aguirre at 6'5" was not really a defensive specialist, and played his defense on the other side of the halfcourt line. Mostly kidding, Mostly.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 1:33 AM

But that is how I remember the 80s. 5 on 4, with a guy hanging back for an outlet pass.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 1:36 AM

Tim thinks Amare is twice the player Dirk is, and since Phoenix has 3-4 more players better than anything the Mav's have, Phoenix will eat Dallas alive in the playoffs.

Like the last 3-4 years

In my world, Phoenix put the Mavs out in six games in '04-'05 playoffs, and the Mavs put the Suns out in six games in the '06 playoffs. I'm not sure what you're pointing to with the last sentence.

And I don't think Amare's twice the player Dirk is, or even equivalent to Dirk. But two years ago--that Amare--was a frightening force of nature. At the end of the day, Dirk doesn't put the fear in me; Larry Bird really did. And that's the vast gulf between the two.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 1:44 AM

Detroit was accurately renowned as one of the few teams that played defense in the 80s. And the definition of "playing defense" was that they were the only team in the league giving up less than 100 points a game, which is to say, there wasn't a ton of defense in the 80s.

Posted by Steve | February 21, 2007 1:49 AM

"At the end of the day, Dirk doesn't put the fear in me; Larry Bird really did."

Bird & Johnson & Jordan were mean SOB's and Dirk isn't. That I cannot deny.

But I watch the post-game interviews, and Dallas has not played one good game this year. I shit you not. Avery is mean enough that his players don't have to be.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 1:55 AM

Here are the facts:

Defense is played at a much higher level than it ever has been.

It doesn't really matter that much when comparing the great players (you think defenders in '86, great athletes all, didn't care when they played against Bird and step it up a notch?).

Dirk is a great player but, because he's nowhere near as complete a player as Bird was, is not as good. Here is where Dirk fails in the comparisons with Larry: He has no ability to anticipate on defense so is naturally a poor team defender. Bird was exactly the opposite. On offense Bird had a fantastic ability to see the court and understand where the defense was weak and the skill to exploit that weakness or, when needed, score on his own while Dirk only does the latter.

Jason Terry is quite underrated and his nice skill set goes a long way in making the Mavs the impressive team that they are (and odds on fave to win it all).

Finally, to Jimm (and other who buy in to this garbage), the players today aren't less skilled in the fundamentals than those oh so vaunted players of yesteryear. This is one of the most insidious myths of modern basketball. Check out shooting percentages from the legendary Celtic teams and the other seven teams in the league at the time. They sucked. And that was at a time when defense sucked.

Current players are fantastically skilled and manage to hit buckets against a tremendous level of defense. Ask yourself if you believe that all these players who are so lacking in fundamentals but have great athleticism just went through their junior years, high school, AAU etc. poorly coached and are somehow starring in the league on pure athleticism. Bull. There are more good coaches out there than ever and talented players are directed towards more opportunities to get better coaching than ever. Granted, there are guys like Darius Miles who are mostly devoid of skill but, if you've noticed, their impact on the league is minimal. On the other hand you've got a ton of players shooting well over 40% from 3-point land, a number that players from classic teams could never have approached during a modern game.

Posted by Sigh | February 21, 2007 1:55 AM

dirk is a dripping wet vag.

Posted by MP | February 21, 2007 2:06 AM

"shooting well over 40% from 3-point land, a number that players from classic teams could never have approached during a modern game."

Bird 1986 .423

Hodges of Milwaukee & Free of Cleveland were also over 400. Dallas had Dale Ellis at .364, who moved to Seattle and is 3rd all-time in completions. But the league mostly sucked.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 2:22 AM

1. Teams in the past (prior to the Bad Boys) played much more team basketball. For many teams, even today, the offense amounts to a series of clearouts. That's not how I remember the 80s teams at all.

2. The defense wasn't "better" so much as more physical. They beat the hell out of offensive players. The recent rule changes have made things much better. I assume offensive numbers will continue to increase.

3. It wasn't the meanness of Bird that impressed me so much as the depth of his understanding of the game. His steal of Isiah's inbound pass remains my favorite (only) Bird defensive memory, and was a thing of genius. The rough equivalent of Jordan's steal from McHale. I can't see Dirk doing that--it wouldn't occur to him. My favorite Bird offensive play? A tip pass over his head to a streaking wing. I can't see Dirk (or anyone today, really) doing that--players today don't really run enough to have that sort of court awareness.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 2:24 AM

well, bob, we've obviously reached the point of diminshing returns: you're as entitled to your obsessions as the next fanatic!

as i noted above, i regard points-per-shot-attempt as a meaningful stat (the youngsters seem to like true shooting percentage, but they register the same thing, and points-per-shot attempt is easier to calculate) because it takes everything into account: number of free throws, shooting percentage, relative ratio of 3s taken, and reduces it to the basic scoring elements: shots and points.

so all i did was to go to basketball-reference.com, take the average team from 1986 and the average team from 2006, and do the calculation (i notice you've suddenly lost interest in shooting percentage, btw!). if defenses were as awesomely bad as you claim in 1986, then points-per-shot-attempt should have been considerably higher in 1986, not fractionally lower. i'm through with stats for the night, but you're welcome to dig out the points per possession; it shouldn't be meaningfully different (insofar as it is, it will relate to the fact that offensive rebounding as a percentage of total rebounding is lower than it was, which could have 3 bases: a.) superior blocking out, which is a matter of defense; b.) more 3-pointers taken, which isn't; c.) a strategic choice not to crash the offensive boards in order, as you've noted, to reduce the opportunities for fast-breaking, which isn't a function of "better" defense as such, and which may be true although hard to understand, in that so few coaches have been interested in running).

btw, i did note down steals and blocked shots. back in the matador era, the average team had 721 steals and 432 blocked shots, while in the popeye-on-spinach era, 588 steals and 385 blocks. now steals and blocked shots aren't the be-all and end-all of good defense (what i'd really like to see is 24-second violations), but i don't have to prove that defense was better in the '80s and i'm not trying to; all i have to make the case for is the idea that "no one" played defense in the '80s, that we overrate bird and johnson and mchale and barkley and jordan and a bunch of others because of "matador" defense is fallacious. if there were really such a dramatic disjunct between then and now, the evidence should be all over the place, and not merely in shot attempts.

because here we are simply never going to see eye-t