It's been a hectic day so I haven't had a chance to note that Elton Brand decided to sign with the Philadelphia 76ers rather than re-up with the new LA Clippers featuring Baron Davis. That means another trip to the lottery for the Clips, and it also means the creation of a Philly squad that's pretty damn good by Eastern Conference standards. Boston and Detroit still seem better, but Brand and Andre Iguodala is a solid inside-outside combination, Andre Miller's been underrated for years, and Samuel Dalembert is a solid role player. If this means Thaddeus Young can start at the three with Iguodala sliding over to shooting guard, thus plugging the big hole in their starting lineup.
« Demanding a Recount | Main | The Trouble With McCain »
The New Contender
09 Jul 2008 06:00 pm
Comments (75)
Sixers should keep Young at sixth man and try and stash a shooter (J.R Smith?) in the starting lineup to spread the floor.
Clippers are probably screwed, but are far enough under the cap to take someone like Ron Artest straight up without matching salary (Al Thornton)? This is important because they'll need to placate Davis after this fiasco. Another possibility is the widely proposed Mobley and Thomas for Vince Carter exchange as the Brooklyn Nets clear out space for Lebron et al.
This should give Baron a little more time to work on his film career.
" it also means the creation of a Philly squad that's pretty damn good by Eastern Conference standards."
In short a Philly/Washington first round playoff series would be compelling.
Hell, let 'em play an 81 game series during the season to see who advances. I'd watch.
-----
Question of the day: who's more fundamentally fucked in a very mild way?
Washington? Philly? Golden State? Milwaukee?
As the legendary Velvet Underground crooner, David Bryne, warbled, "we're on a road to nowhere."
That means another trip to the lottery for the Clips, and it also means the creation of a Philly squad that's pretty damn good by Eastern Conference standards.
I'm really beginning to think that Eastern conference teams are just better built for playoff basketball. I'm not willing to say the East is better or at parity, but I do believe the East is more suited to winning in the second season.
In short a Philly/Washington first round playoff series would be compelling.
Wasn't the Philly/Detroit series pretty compelling? Wouldn't it be much more so with the addition of Brand, the growth of the younger talent and shifting some smaller players to their more "natural" positions?
I think you might just be a little sore that next year's Philly will be better having gotten rid of The Answer.
"Andre Miller's been underrated for years"
But, no.
'Dre's been evaluated well for years.
Everyone knows that he's an above average stand-up point who could be the fourth or fifth guy on an elite team. But the lack of even a rudimentary shooting touch to keep is defender honest degrades his overall skill level to a point where it keeps him from creating distance between himself and the average.
Almost justifiably made the all-star team once. Puts up solid, above average lines year after year.
Never played for a winner. Could be coincidence. Could be something inherent to his game. One theory I half buy is that poor shooting point guards are less likely to play for winners. Most winners can't afford to have folks left on the perimeter and not able to capitalize when unguarded.
The lack of winners could be noise or could be real. Small sample size to decide.
I'm really beginning to think that Eastern conference teams are just better built for playoff basketball. I'm not willing to say the East is better or at parity, but I do believe the East is more suited to winning in the second season.
Or it could be that the West is so much more competitive that the players on top teams aren't able to rest before the playoffs or "practice" on sub-.500 teams in the first round. Last year, every one of the top 10 teams was fighting for position until the last game or two. Meanwhile, the Celtics and the Pistons were able to spend much more time developing their bench and their younger talent as they had already clinched their seeding.
Velvet Underground?
I don't think Philly's fucked. They've got a nice young core. As stated above, they need a shooter or two.
The rest of those teams are fucked in a mild way. Washington just ain't getting any better, with the $ they're throwing at Gil and Antawn. Milwaukee looks like a decent team on paper, but I still need to be convinced that their front office is minimally competent and won't screw it up. And of course, the Warriors. Monta is going to be an absolute stud, but they need a PG. They need a 4, obviously. I'm intruguiged by the possibilities of Brandon Wright and Anthony Randolph, if we can keep them straight, but they remain possibilities. I would have never said this two weeks ago, but without Baron, maybe they oughta rebuild. Buy Nellie out, tell him to relax in Maui, and dump everybody except Monta, Biedrins, Wright, and Alexander. Get lucky in the lottery or sign the right free agent and they're right back in it.
Nah, never mind. I never want to see my team give up and rebuild. I'm actually perfectly satisfied with the last 2 seasons, though of course I'd rather see them in the playoffs. They've been competetive, fun the watch, they win a little more than they lose and they're filled with likable guys.
Here's what I'm worried about in the short term: without Baron, what happens to Captain Jack? Does he revert to his less dependable ways?
And Harrington's contract needs to go. He's a nice piece for a good team but he's not going to help the Warriors much. Time to cut him loose and give his minutes to Brandon Wright.
Question of the day: who's more fundamentally fucked in a very mild way?
Washington? Philly? Golden State? Milwaukee?
Milwaukee, who just gave Andrew Bogut $72M, in addition to the $7M they already owe him.
Golden States in modest trouble, and is obviously disadvantaged by being in the West, but they have a lot of talented pieces and some cap room, and Nellie has a way of finding 50-win teams in the strangest places.
Washington is stuck in neutral, and passed on their big chance this summer.
Why do you think Philly is fucked at all? Other than maybe Toronto, I don't think anyone in the East is likely to improve more this season.
If this means Thaddeus Young can start at the three with Iguodala sliding over to shooting guard, thus plugging the big hole in their starting lineup.
That makes total sense.
Andre Miller's been underrated for years
Yup. Everybody knows that Philly got the better of the deal that sent Iverson to the Nuggies in exchange for Miller. Miller was not only far, far cheaper than AI, but he's also a better player than AI - as evidenced by the fact that Philly actually improved when Miller joined the team, while Denver didn't improve when Iverson joined the team (not even after the suspensions, etc. were over).
As for Philly, of course they need to resign Iguodala, who's a restricted FA. It would be pretty funny if the Clip Joint now proceeded to make a gigantic offer to Iggy, just to screw the Sixers.
As the legendary Velvet Underground crooner, David Bryne, warbled, "we're on a road to nowhere."
Um, do you mean David Byrne? of Talking Heads? and their song "Road to Nowhere"?
I know I'm going to incur The Wrath of Petey, but you might want to sound like you know what you are talking about
"I think you might just be a little sore that next year's Philly will be better having gotten rid of The Answer."
If Philly were to actually challenge for the title, I'd start to get sucked in, (in a good way.)
But short of that, I'd have more fun watching the Nuggets get the #7 seed more than watching the Sixers get the #3 seed. What can I say? I got traded along with Bubbachuck.
I still love most of the Sixers' kids who were on the lest Iverson squad, and I wish them well, but unless Iverson runs right off the cliff like Roadrunner, the Show continues to goes on. A good summer blockbuster needs a hero.
"Um, do you mean David Byrne? of Talking Heads? and their song "Road to Nowhere"?"
I'm about 97% sure you're thinking of David Bryne? of The Cramps? and their song "Garbage Man"?
------
At this point, our only point of agreement is David Bryne.
Agree with Petey, don't agree with Al. I know he's a Denver fan, and didn't like the AI deal, but I dont't think that means Miller has been overrated. He's always been a better than average PG who has gone deep into the playoffs. It seems to me like he had his best season in a while this past year. If Thad Young makes the jump, this team is going to be VERY scary in the East. As long as Brand doesn't have a huge drop after his injury.
Also don't agree with Ugh at all. The idea of contraction for the NBA is ridiculous. They're ready for expansion. The overall talent level is higher than its ever been. I don't really think they should expand, but the product is fine the way it is. Try to watch a few games first.
I just assumed Petey was making some joke that I missed with the "David Byrne, of the Velvet Underground" remark.
Petey, I don't see the Nuggets getting that 7 seed again for a while. Or the 8, for that matter. Not with Portland at full strength. Maybe if the Rockets come down to earth and suffer the usual injuries, or the Suns or Mavs collapse faster than I think they will. But the West is going to be just as scary this year as it was last year.
You've got Utah, the Lakers, the Hornets and the Spurs as obvious playoff teams. Then the next tier is a clusterfuck of Houston, Portland, Dallas, Phoenix and Denver. One of those teams ain't getting in, and I'd pick Denver. They're just lucky Brand bolted, or the Clippers would be better than them, too.
Mark my words, don't forget the Blazers. 2011 champs!
The deal certainly makes Philly better, but it should be noted that Elton Brand has had many years to become a winning player in the NBA...and it really hasn't happened. I like Iguodala, but until he proves otherwise, he too remains a second tier player in the league. Can Brand, Iguodala, Dalembert and Miller combine to do something special? I'm skeptical, but it will be fun to watch. As a Boston fan, I hate it when Philly isn't competitive.
I meant to say, "hasn't gone deep in the playoffs."
"He's always been a better than average PG who has gone deep into the playoffs"
No. No.
Miller's never gotten past the first round.
He's missed the playoffs a majority of his years in the association.
I don't think he's an above average point, but I also think his inability to even rudimentarily knock down the open shot kills his teams' offenses.
Or put another way, I think he hasn't gone deep in the playoffs because teams building to go deep in the playoffs avoid players with that particular weakness.
He regularly makes mediocre teams good, but he's only useful to very good teams in a limited role.
Hm, Kawakami says Nellie told him that Monta will definitely play PG this year, with Jack at the 2 and Maggette at the 3. That leaves Harrington and Biedrins up front and the skinny 6-10 kids coming off the bench.
That does not sound that bad. Obviously the big question is, can you win with Monta at the point? We'll find out. Maybe the kid will improve his playmaking skills as much as he's improved his jump shot.
There's no way I'd bet on that team to make the playoffs, but it could be a fun team (in my world, your team is only fun to follow if they're at least in the hunt for a playoff spot for most of the year).
owenz, it's pretty unfair to hold Brand responsible for the Clippers sucking. What more could he have done? The one year they put a decent team around him they came within one win of the conference finals.
"Petey, I don't see the Nuggets getting that 7 seed again for a while. Or the 8, for that matter"
The dream is that Nene shows up for 75+ games. If that happens, we go up a significant notch. Cat can ball. Creates a whole different team.
Likeliness in question, but valid hopes present.
It's an old 'n' creaky team without a history, and everyone has to stay healthy and present. But the talent is there to be a player, if everything comes together.
Likeliness in question, but valid hopes present.
Petey,
I'm so glad I was able to correct my post before you let me have it. There are a lot of PG's who aren't great shooters. Now granted, his 3 pt% is probably under 30, but I'm too lazy to look it up. But below average? C'mon, you don't mean that.
"I don't think (Miller is) an above average point, but..."
Strike out. Meant:
I do think he's an above average point, but...
Petey,
Ha!
Love,
Stacy
Hm, Kawakami says Nellie told him that Monta will definitely play PG this year, with Jack at the 2 and Maggette at the 3. That leaves Harrington and Biedrins up front and the skinny 6-10 kids coming off the bench.
It seems like they picked up Ronny Turiaf for $17 million/4 years. I think he'll compete pretty well with Biedrins.
The thing about the Nellie ball, though, is that you don't really have to fill the traditional 1-2-3-4-5 spots, you just need 5 ballers on the floor. If they can get the "skinny 6-10 kids" ready then they might be a little dangerous (in a stunning upset or two followed by a couple of weeks of mediocrity sort of way).
It seems like all the other Philly area people haven't weighed in on this yet. Moving the new AI to the shooting guard is not going to work. AI is a 3, not a 2. He can't shoot from the outside to save his life. At best, AI is a poor man's Scottie Pippen.
Also don't agree with Ugh at all. The idea of contraction for the NBA is ridiculous. They're ready for expansion. The overall talent level is higher than its ever been. I don't really think they should expand, but the product is fine the way it is. Try to watch a few games first.
This sentiment comes from two factors. First, the normal media/dumb fan instinct to think longingly about how great the players were 'back in the day. And second, Bill Simmons preposterous campaign on this issue with respect to the NBA.
What these guys don't realize is that if you contract 6-8 teams, sure, everybody gets better. But in an alternate universe somewhere, Bill Simmons is complaining about how the 24 team NBA is too diluted talent-wise. It's not like there's some mysterious drop off in talent after the top 50 players worldwide. In fact, what you see is that guys that you thought were marginal will occasionally bring it. It turns out that when you increase the profit potential to enormous levels, there are a lot of athletic 6' 7'' guys in the world.
Bill compares the current league to the 80s when the Celts and Lakers dominated with stacked rosters. What he misses is that those rosters weren't stacked b/c of fewer teams in the league. First, some of those secondary and tertiary players are probably overrated as far as their alleged hall of fame credentials are concerned. Secondly, the management disparity was probably greater in the league back in the day. Thirdly, before the cap, management quality disparity was even more meaningful. Both the Celtics and Lakers got hugely lucky on a couple of traded draft picks turning into top picks in the 80s. Those picks would have probably been protected in the current NBA universe.
Yeah, mpowell, I couldn't agree with you more. Outside of his chats, I can't even read Bill Simmons anymore. Nostalgia affects a lot sports, but none so much as the NBA. There is no doubt in my mind that the 15th best NBA team would crush the 15th best NBA team from a decade ago. I also like your point about managment disparity. I just finished 'The Breaks of the Game,' and that shed a lot of light as far as talent and management disparity in the NBA of yore...
Outside of his chats, I can't even read Bill Simmons anymore.
Same. I'm not sure it's the infection of nostalgia. I just find it harder and harder to believe he still watches the games.
Highlight from Kawakami's Nellie interview:
Q: Have you spoken to Baron since he left?
-NELSON: Oh yeah. We spoke several times on the phone. He came over to the office to say good-bye. We had a cigar together, sat in my truck for about two hours and talked.
it also means the creation of a Philly squad that's pretty damn good by Eastern Conference standards
When are people going to face the fact that the Western Conf. has one great team, the Spurs. Nobody else in the West can close the deal. Dallas is over, Phoenix is done, Utah has not proven anything yet. Gimmie a break. The Lakers had all the time in the world to rest, play their scrubs, and watch film, as they breezed through the vaunted Western Conf playoffs but they still got embarrassed by the Celtics in the Finals. They got outcoached and outplayed, even with a horrendous shooting point guard in Rondo. Meanwhile the Celtics were taken to 7 games by Atlanta. Atlanta gave Boston a better series than the Lakers. What does that say about the standards of the Western Conference?
That said, as a Marino fan growing up, I don't expect to see the same Brandt after his achilles rupture. Marino was never the same. He couldn't even hand the ball off, let alone plant and throw on his peg-leg.
The idea that athletes continue to get more and more athletic is absolutely prevalent, but there's really no explanation of what kind of mechanism could be making that happen. I think people kind of casually think evolution is somehow making people more and more athletic. That level of misunderstanding of evolution makes me shudder for the common man.
mpowell, please: larry bird, kevin mchale, robert parish, dennis johnson, kareem abdul jabar, earvin johnson, james worthy are all legit hall-of-famers, michael cooper was the outstanding man defender of his era, a healthy bill walton was also a hall-of-famer, and such others as mcadoo and mychal thompson were among the better players of the period.
i hate the cap and everything about it, btw, but the '80s, like the '60s, simply was a great basketball era. we could have another, although like ugh up above, i'd say fewer teams would make it more possible....
When are people going to face the fact that the Western Conf. has one great team, the Spurs. Nobody else in the West can close the deal. Dallas is over, Phoenix is done, Utah has not proven anything yet. Gimmie a break. The Lakers had all the time in the world to rest, play their scrubs, and watch film, as they breezed through the vaunted Western Conf playoffs but they still got embarrassed by the Celtics in the Finals... What does that say about the standards of the Western Conference?
I guess it depends how you define "great", but this is nuts. The Lakers only had 35 games to integrate Gasol into their gameplan, and were missing their starting center the entire time he was there, and still managed to knock off the "great" Spurs. Somehow you didn't mention New Orleans, who finished one game behind the Lakers, with the same record as San Antonio, and took the Spurs to 7 games. Utah finished two games behind the Spurs and took the Lakers to 6, while the Spurs only lasted 5, etc. etc.
The idea that athletes continue to get more and more athletic is absolutely prevalent, but there's really no explanation of what kind of mechanism could be making that happen.
I think mpowell nails part of it above: the incentive (dollars) to maximize your athletic ability have grown enormously over the last few decades. The other part is that access and exposure to the game from an early age has increased dramatically, especially internationally. Secondary factors include better health, fitness awareness, nutrition, etc. So it's not that there are many more people who have the potential to be athletic, it's that they are finding their way to maximizing that potential in the NBA.
Dennis Johnson and James Worthy are NOT legit Hall of Famers. They are in the Hall because they played on those great teams. They were very good players, but not all that much better than many players around the league. Honestly, you could probably say the same for Parrish. They just didn't have that great of careers. Now granted, we see this in many sports(I'm looking at you Troy Aikman) but the way we worship these Lakers and Celtics teams from the 80's is silly.
The idea that athletes continue to get more and more athletic is absolutely prevalent, but there's really no explanation of what kind of mechanism could be making that happen.
Better nutrition, fewer smokers, better sports medicine, more optimal training regimens, better training techniques?
Why have we been able to create better wines and better computers and better food (at least in America) in the last 20 years? It's called progress and there aren't really any supernatural reasons for it.
When are people going to face the fact that the Western Conf. has one great team, the Spurs.
You, sir, are one of a great many reasons why people despise the Spurs. People may not like the Lakers or Celtics, the Pistons or the Suns, but no team is more hated than the Spurs.
Oh, and before anyone says it, I'm fully aware that DJ was a Finals MVP for the Sonics, and a lockdown defender.
Alright, maybe not Parish. I take that one back. He's legit. And handsome.
Who the hell is David Bryne?
To add to the chorus about the 80s.
Bird and Magic are probably unmatchedby anyone playing today, but their supporting casts are easily duplicated several times over. The combination of no salary cap, lucky drafts and good management concentrated talent in incredible ways. Back then there were probably only a handfull of players who you could have swapped respectively for McHale, Kareem (of that era not his peak), Parrish, DJ, Worthy, Walton (ditto Kareem comment) etc. Today there are probably 10 or more for each.
So put another way, no team today as good as the Lakers or Celtics is possible becasue there is no Bird or Magic equivilent, as good as Lebron, Duncan, Paul, Kobe etc are they just aren't that good, Lebron may get there. But overall there are more talented players so 12-14 very good teams are possible, back then there were probably only 5 or 6 very good teams.
Bird and Magic are probably unmatchedby anyone playing today
Is this something we can ever really answer without getting into a "Superman vs. Mighty Mouse" type of argument? Though they may be skilled, the atheletes of today are probably more athletic and playing against more athletic competition. The athletes of today have also engaged in amazing feats of daring-do and put up great numbers as well.
Iggy at the 2 = disaster, since he can't, you know, dribble. His game is like Wally Szerbiak with more hops and less J. And I mean that as a compliment.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the 15th best NBA team would crush the 15th best NBA team from a decade ago."
As Charles Barkley has said, NBA players today run like deer, jump like deer and think like deer. Today's player is unquestionably a better athlete, but they don't play the game nearly as well. Look no further than the supposed Best Player on the Planet Kobe Bryant and his incredibly bad shot selection for proof. I think the Reggie Miller/Rik Smits Pacers would dominate the league today.
Mike
Mike,
C'mon. Of course Charles Barkley thinks that. All old-heads think that their era was far superior. Its stupid. Reggie Miller had worse shot selection than Kobe Bryant. I'm not even talking about the overall athleticism of individual players, I'm talking about the depth of talent in the league. Its not close.
"I'm talking about the depth of talent in the league. Its not close."
Are you kidding me? Do you remember those old Bucks teams with guys like Paul Pressey and Ricky Pierce? What would the Hawks teams of Wilkins/Rivers/Willis do in today's NBA? What about the Drexler Trailblazers? How about the Payton/Kemp Sonics or the Run TMC Warriors? How about that Denver team with Mutombo and LaPhonso Ellis compared to today's Anthony/AI Nugs? What about the McDaniel/Chambers/Ellis Sonics?
Mike
Somewhat OT, but Shaun Livingston was just released by the Clip Show. Where do you guys think he'll wind up? Assuming his contract isn't prohibitively expensive, I'd like to see him in GS.
But it seems like he'd be a better fit for the Wizards: A good PG on the cheap to distribute the ball to DC's big three.
Iggy at the 2 = disaster Jeez, Pooh, we're still trying too figure out what the hell Petey meant with his David Byrne-of-the-VU comment, and you're bringing up the Stooges? Way to make this thread even more confusing...
On the 80's comparisons, one clear difference (I think) is that players are bigger -- both taller and more muscular.
Because of Magic, there was a trend toward tall PGs, but when no one actually turned into Magic II teams went back to normal-sized PGs and Detlef Schrempf became a 3 again. Other than that, players in the 80s were smaller than they are now. I think everyone's stronger, and with better conditioning (and maybe less emphasis on learning the ins and outs of post play) taller players are more agile and athletic and playing on the wings more.
I'd say we could measure this, but since NBA listed heights are largely fictional, you'd have to take the numbers with a huge grain of salt.
Larger players on the same court play the game differently, like hockey on a small rink instead of a big one.
Mike, the fun Denver team was the crazy lineup with Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, and Fat Lever (I think he played with Kiki before the trade to the Blazers). Never contended, but scored insane numbers of points.
Yes, Mike, I'm fully aware. The ovarall talent level of the league, from the best team all the way down to the worst team is better than its ever been. A lot of this has to do with the influx of foreign players. Look at Spain and Argentina's Olympic rosters. The starting lineups are essentially all very decent NBA players.
I have to ask you a real question, do you even watch the NBA today? You just named a lot of good teams, and good players, but only two of those guys are Hall of Famers. The Suns this year had two sure Hall of Famers, and possibly a third one in Stoudemire. They lost in the first round. The Dallas Mavericks have two Hall of Famers. They lsot in the first round. I have a very sneaky feeling that you don't watch the NBA anymore. Your comments make it fairly obvious.
And just to be clear, I don't mean to be insulting. I can just tell you stopped paying attention to the NBA in the late 90's.
Also, its kind of a shame that Wilkins isn't in the Hall. He definitely should be.
Stacy, Dennis Johnson is not in the Hall of Fame. I know this because Bill Simmons keeps writing columns about the horrible injustice of it all.
Also, 'Nique is in the Hall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame
The problem with the Hall of Fame is that it has quotas -- there are separate committees to nominate women, international players, non-players, etc. So there are freaking referees in the Hall of Fame ahead of guys like Artis Gilmore. Hell, there are 77 coaches in the hall and only 131 players, so they're telling us that coaches are more than half as important to the history of basketball as players.
What's obvious Stacy, is that you don't understand and have no ability to discern what makes someone a great basketball player or what makes up a great team. Anyone who denies Dennis Johnson a place in the Hall of Fame, yet hands out a spot to Dirk Bleeping Nowitski wouldn't know the game of basketball if it called them up and took them out to dinner. That you think the elimination of the Suns and Mavs in the first round proves anything except that those two teams played poorly despite having so many "Hall of Famers" is another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.
And yes, Stacy, I watch plenty of current NBA games and quite enjoyed seeing my beloved Celtics rack up Title 17. It's the fact that I watch that enables me to see that while today's NBA player is athletically superior, they're inferior as basketball players.
Or do you think any collection of NBA All-Stars from the 80s would've been as utterly flummoxed by European zone defenses as modern NBA players have been?
Mike
Dude, seriously, you're going to argue that Dennis Johnson was better than Dirk is? Dirk's got a few years to go, so his legacy isn't exactly clear, but he's a perennial all-nba guy, usually on the 2nd or 3rd team but occasionally the first team. Dennis Johnson made the 2nd team once and the 1st team once. Dirk has won an MVP, for chrissake.
Look, you take Dennis Johnson and build a team around him, with him as the star, the #1 guy, and let's see if it makes the NBA Finals. Somehow I doubt it.
Too Many Steves,
Dennis Johnson is in the Hall of Fame. I just looked it up on basketballreference.com. But you're correct about Wilkins. My bad. Trust me, though, I'm not looking at the Hall of Fame as the final say.
Mike,
The revelation that you're a Boston fan makes so much sense, I can't believe I didn't guess it right off the bat. Listen, I know we all suffer from nostalgia. My dick doesn't seem to get as hard as it used to, either, but you're wrong. Dennis Johnson simply didn't have that great of a career. And yes, Dirk will be remembered as a better player than DJ by anybody that knows basketball. Boston fans excluded obviously, because they are delusional about all of their teams. I'm fully aware that the Suns and the Mavs didn't deserve to get out of the first round. That was kind of my point. I know most of those guys are past their prime, but I'm just giving you an example of the level of talent in the league. Also, just because you watched game 5 and 6 of the finals this year doesn't mean you watch the NBA. I still love you, though.
Here's how I see it: the '80s, especially from, say '84 to '91, were the golden age of professional basketball. Part of that was cultural -- because of Larry, Michael and Magic, pro basketball was the #1 sport in America. The NFL might have had better TV ratings, but there was no doubt which sport was more culturally important back then. The quality of play was very high at the top levels, but there were teams that just sucked hopelessly for years. There were also a couple of big white stiffs on every team who would be bagging groceries nowadays.
The current era (which I would define as, say 2004-present, from the dawn of the run-n-gun Suns and the debut of LeBron and the relaxing of the hand-check rules) is almost a second golden age. The quality of play is just as good, I'd say, because more guys actually play defense. Top-to-bottom, the rosters are better, because although the league has expanded slightly, the talent pool has expanded tremendously. The game isn't as culturally important and the great teams aren't as historically great, but the league is just as interesting to follow as it was when I was 12. There were some lean years there in the late '90s and early 2000s, though. Ugh.
Stacy, the Hall of Fame's website says, no Dennis Johnson.
http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/bhof-halloffamers-alpha.html
Oh, and to answer your final question: yes, I do believe that best American players could have been just as flummoxed by the international game as current ones. The international game didn't have good teams in the 80's, and were poorly coached. But, to suggest that those players would have no problems with it means either...
A. The current NBA all-stars are of lesser intelligence than players from the 80's.
B. They are coached poorly.
C. Somehow, over the last generation, people have been born with less basketball instincts.
Which one is it?
Too Many,
That blows my mind. I thought for sure he was. But you're right, I can remember Simmons writing about it. As far as your post before that one, I think you're pretty much right on all accounts...
Things were always better in the old days. Everything was great, and there was no crap. If you don't believe me, just search and scan any week's Billboard Top 10 for the golden era of the '60s or '80s, when everything was great.
Despite the fact that the NBA now draws upon the entire world's population, not just the U.S.'s; that athletes in every objectively measurable way are bigger, faster, quicker, and stronger than 30 years ago; the advent of scientific weight training theory and equipment; vastly better repairative (not a word, but you know what I mean)surgery and therapy; video compilation scouting; advanced computer imaging for "mechanics" tuneups; and vastly greater financial compensation for success; the NBA has really deteriorated.
Those old 1910 Fruitgum Company records, tho...those really hold up.
"Dennis Johnson simply didn't have that great of a career."
Again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Honors: NBA champion (1979, '84, '86); NBA Finals MVP (1979); All-NBA First Team (1981); All-NBA Second Team (1980); All-Defensive First Team (1979-83, '87); All-Defensive Second Team (1984-86); Five-time NBA All-Star 1979-82, '85).
Johnson retired at age 35 after the 1989-90 season as the 11th player in NBA history to amass more than 15,000 points and 5,000 assists. In Sports Illustrated, teammate Bird, who was not known for lightly tossing around compliments, called Johnson "the best I've ever played with."
Mike
PS: As a close observor of the Warriors, I believe they'll be lucky to finish 10th in the West, altho if they get Turiaf that'll help a little bit. Ellis has great skills, but zero command as a point guard, and Jack is very likely to regress without BD.
As Harry Reid, lead singer of the Velvet Heads, crooned, "You get what you pay for."
Mike,
I'm fully aware of all those things. Its all relative. But he didn't really have THAT great of a career. Its kind of like adding REALLY in the phrase, "the first time in my adult I've been really proud of my country." I'm not dogging on Dennis Johnson, he's just not as good as Dirk, and didn't have a HOF career. Anyways, we're just arguing sports, its all in good fun. I love you.
xoxo,
Stacy
For all you poor fools who think the NBA today is better and players are better than they used to be, then you must believe the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics are the best team in the history of basketball, right? For one single season, they must be the greatest team ever because they were, statistically and on the court, significantly better than every other team in today's supposedly better-than-ever NBA.
Mike
Mike,
Wrong. I don't think that at all. Teams in the past were more top heavy due to salary structure, disparity in managment, etc. The product is much more homogenous as far as talent. But the 10th best team would be the snot out of the 10th best team from 1987.
"I'm not dogging on Dennis Johnson, he's just not as good as Dirk, and didn't have a HOF career."
I not at all surprised that your understanding of basketball is limited to recognizing that a 6-4, defensive PG didn't put up the same stats as a 7 ft PF that has been the focus of his team's offense for practially his entire career.
Mike
Mike,
That's a silly assumption to make about me. I certainly think Gary Payton deserves to be in the HOF, and has had a better career than Dirk. Trust me, its not going to be close by the time he's done. I've said nothing of stats. Trust me, if we were just going off stats, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
"Teams in the past were more top heavy due to salary structure, disparity in managment, etc. The product is much more homogenous as far as talent. But the 10th best team would be the snot out of the 10th best team from 1987."
What does salary structure, management disparities or homogenousness have to do with the question?
Boston was, statistically and on the court, one of the most dominant teams in NBA history. According to you, dear Stacy, they achieved that dominance against a level of competition significantly better than ever before. Therefore, the 07-08 Boston Celtics HAVE to be the best single season team of all time.
Mike
What do you mean, what do they have to do with it? The top teams in that era were more like all-star teams. The bottom teams were terrible. The talent wasn't as evenly distributed. I'm not sure how that is hard to grasp. All I've stated since the very beginning is the level of talent in the NBA is better than it ever has been. That DOES NOT mean that the champion from 2008 would beat the champion from 1988. And that's due to the reasons mentioned above. Now that's not to say that the 2011 champion couldn't be the best ever, it would just be difficult considering how small the gap in talent is between the teams now. Does that explanation suffice? I'm not denying that a team with Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, and Walton isn't unbelievable. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
"I'm not denying that a team with Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, and Walton isn't unbelievable."
I mean to say that they are, in fact, unbelievable. That sentence came out sounding improper. You know what I meant.
Alan in SF,
Well ranted. And while a luddite view of sports is as silly as you point out, team sports don't necessarily get better as the players get bigger, faster, stronger, and more athletic.
The reason, as I mentioned above, is the court/field. The basketball court has changed over the years -- the key has widened, the 3-point line has come into play. But it's still the same length and width it's always been, AFAIK, and the hoop is still 10 feet high. The game just isn't the same when players are so different. That doesn't make it necessarily worse, but it's not crazy to say that the game was more fun to watch when, say, a guy like Moses Malone was seen as a big bruiser -- was Moses any bigger when he played than LeBron is now?
Tennis is a really good example. Oversized, composite racquets and much stronger players have changed the game fundamentally. You can stand behind the baseline and take a huge swing because the sweet spot is so big, and you can actually hit a winner from back there. On the other hand, McEnroe's or Edberg's style of play is almost impossible now, from what I can tell.
So I don't think it's crazy for someone to prefer watching the mid-80s Nuggets to the current version. The current version would probably stomp the old one -- what is Alex English gonna do to stop Carmelo? But they might still have been more fun to watch.
Cornbread Maxwell shot over 60% during his prime with an entirely below-the-rim low post arsenal. That wouldn't happen today. Let's put to rest this crap about older players being smarter (or better defenders).
hey, if you're still around Pesto, you're absolutely right. The growth of the players -- bulk x speed x wingspan -- relative to the court dimensions has radically changed the game, not necessarily for the better. that's one reason i get pissed off when people say players don't play defense like they used to -- today's good defenses are impenetrable. or that players can't shoot -- they've got three guys with huge wingspans standing between them and a 10-foot rim! small forwards are 7 feet tall and can bring the ball upcourt and shoot the three.
I do think a game between today's 14th and 15th best NBA teams -- say, the Warriors and the Wizards -- would be a lot more entertaining than a game between the 14th and 15th best teams of the golden age.
Alan,
Yup, still here. I think the comparison in your last paragraph is a bit apples-to-oranges, since during the golden age the NBA had, IIRC, 23 teams.
Expansions teams since 1983:
Heat
Magic
Raptors
Grizzlies
Hornets
Bobcats
T'wolves
A 14-15 matchup now involves 2 middle-of-the-league type of teams. A 14-15 25 years ago involved 2 losers, maybe equivalent to watching the Clippers play the Bucks last year.
I remember one incredibly entertaining game between just those types of mid-pack teams from back then -- you might, too. Do you remember the late-season game between the W's and the Nuggets, with GS fighting for the playoffs, and for .500? This was in '81, IIRC, the Free/Short/King/Smith/JB lineup against the Issel/English/Thompson Nuggets.
The score was something like 83-79 Nuggets. At halftime. The refs blew some calls against the Warriors down the stretch, Bill King went off ("Typical of the NBA!"), and the Warriors lost and missed the playoffs by a hair.
Comments closed July 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Can we put our efforts into getting the NBA to contract by 6-8 teams, shorten the regular season to ~65 games, and return to the five game first round of playoffs (at least)? No? Bummer.
Posted by Ugh | July 9, 2008 6:10 PM