167 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Fair, but the physicality and especially the hand checking are just so overblown by people who look back fondly at the old days.

And admittedly I'm being a hypocrite to my thoughts as a kid. 

I loved the Charlie Ward FSU Seminoles (Football here) because they opened things up, and utilized their speed.
When I played whatever NBA game existed at the time, (maybe NBA Showdown?) I'd want to bring in Paxon off the bench, spread the floor and jack 3's. 

 

But all these years later, I do miss the physical games which existed in the NBA and NFL then. 

Been great in this Last Dance series remembering the Bulls / Detroit series (first games I really vividly remember), Bulls / Knicks... seeing play after play which would be called flagrant all day today. 

I do remember watching those Knicks teams, and people hating the low scoring, and their style... but I did admire then them finding a way to compete with the roster they had, utilizing their strengths (which was strength, and effort).

[SportsGuy]

It’s not as much of the era that I pine for, it’s Jordan and those Bulls teams.

[BSLChrisStoner]

It’s not as much of the era that I pine for, it’s Jordan and those Bulls teams.

Yeah, agreed.  Really just Jordan.

[mweb08]

And admittedly I'm being a hypocrite to my thoughts as a kid.

I loved the Charlie Ward FSU Seminoles (Football here) because they opened things up, and utilized their speed.
When I played whatever NBA game existed at the time, (maybe NBA Showdown?) I'd want to bring in Paxon off the bench, spread the floor and jack 3's.

But all these years later, I do miss the physical games which existed in the NBA and NFL then.

Been great in this Last Dance series remembering the Bulls / Detroit series (first games I really vividly remember), Bulls / Knicks... seeing play after play which would be called flagrant all day today.

I do remember watching those Knicks teams, and people hating the low scoring, and their style... but I did admire then them finding a way to compete with the roster they had, utilizing their strengths (which was strength, and effort).

Of course they feature the most physicality they can find in this doc and in these highlight videos to make it look like those types of play were the norm.

I also prefer actual basketball, which some of those plays hardly are.

But those Knicks are an iconic team, partly because of the physicality, but more so because of being in NYC and being one of MJ and the Bulls' rivals. They are also an example of what I was talking about. Ewing is kinda weak for being the best player on a title team and then who was the 2nd best player? They did find a way to compete as you said, but they just weren't a great team.

[mweb08]

Most of the great teams of today aren’t that great either.

The NBA is what it always has been...3-5 really good teams and a bunch of nobodies.

This is hyperbole, but anyways, the 2-5 best teams weren't all that back then.

[SportsGuy]

This is hyperbole, but anyways, the 2-5 best teams weren't all that back then.

It’s not hyperbole at all.

There are only a few teams who can win in any given year.

I disagree with your second part as I think you put the teams and players of today on a pedestal they don’t belong as well.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Of course they feature the most physicality they can find in this doc and in these highlight videos to make it look like those types of play were the norm.

I also prefer actual basketball, which some of those plays hardly are.

But those Knicks are an iconic team, partly because of the physicality, but more so because of being in NYC and being one of MJ and the Bulls rivals. They are also an example of what I was talking about. Ewing is kinda weak for being the best player on a title team and then who was the 2nd best player? They did find a way to compete as you said, but they just weren't a great team.

 

HOF HC.
Ewing ... whatever you think of him, he is HOF.

Oakley, Starks, Mason, Rivers, Blackman all made at-least 1 all-star team in their careers... 
H. Davis, Anthony, C. Smith solid careers...

Still, get your overall point. 


I think the defense they and Pistons played... was / is basketball. 

[mweb08]

It’s not hyperbole at all.

There are only a few teams who can win in any given year.

I disagree with your second part as I think you put the teams and players of today on a pedestal they don’t belong as well.

The term nobodies is hyberbole, as is the number of teams.

I'm not putting players on a pedestal, I'm just able to recognize something that is very obvious to people that know the NBA. The talent pool right now is much deeper than it was then and that's of course reflected in the rosters. Again, look at those rosters of the best and really evaluate them.

[SportsGuy]

The term nobodies is hyberbole, as is the number of teams.
I'm not putting players on a pedestal, I'm just able to recognize something that is very obvious to people that know the NBA. The talent pool right now is much deeper than it was then and that's of course reflected in the rosters. Again, look at those rosters of the best and really evaluate them.

I definitely think the talent pool is deeper, if for no reason you have the international guys.

But better talent doesn’t necessarily mean better teams and it doesn’t necessarily mean those teams are much better than the teams before.

And people who follow basketball are just giving their opinions. It’s not like you can prove this.

[mweb08]

HOF HC.
Ewing ... whatever you think of him, he is HOF.

Oakley, Starks, Mason, Rivers, Blackman all made at-least 1 all-star team in their careers...
H. Davis, Anthony, C. Smith solid careers...

Still, get your overall point.


I think the defense they and Pistons played... was / is basketball.

Cheap shots aren't basketball. The defense they played otherwise is cool.

And thanks for listing out that roster.

[mweb08]

I definitely think the talent pool is deeper, if for no reason you have the international guys.

But better talent doesn’t necessarily mean better teams and it doesn’t necessarily mean those teams are much better than the teams before.

And people who follow basketball are just giving their opinions. It’s not like you can prove this.

Yeah, it's not provable, it's just incredibly obvious.

[SportsGuy]

The NBA is as it’s always been..a league dominated by the top 5 or so players and a few teams.

Without injuries or bogus suspensions, GS would be the 5 time champ.

The teams that can’t compete are essentially nobodies.

They are all forgotten teams with little hope at making noise in any significant way.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah, it's not provable, it's just incredibly obvious.

Not really..especially if you are in different eras.

I generally agree that new sports are better than old sports...Jamal Lewis would be looked at as one of the greatest ever if you put him in Jim Browns era and or Brown in this era.

That’s largely true.

A guy like Okafor probably would have been a several time AS in the 90s but he struggles to get minutes now.

Different styles, more athleticism, expanded skill sets.

Still, when you are talking about pure teams, I don’t think you see much difference. You also have more players playing for themselves nowadays. More me me me, social media, etc...that impacts on how good teams end up being imo.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Believe it was Mark Jackson - might have been Jalen Rose, but I think it was Jackson - raised the point that he thought the teams the Bulls got through.... the Knicks, Pacers, Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, Utah...  would be remembered better, held in higher esteem without Jordan.  That each of those teams were better than other teams which have won titles, and would compete with the best teams of today. 

I think those teams could have competed well with these Finals teams from the last 20 years...

 

'00 Pacers
'01 76ers

'02 and '03 Nets
'04 (Champs) and '05 Pistons
'04 Lakers
'06 Mavericks
'07 Cavs

'08 Lakers

'09 Magic

'11 Maverics (Champs)

'15, '16 (Champs), '17, '18 Cavs
'19 Raptors (Champs)

[mweb08]

Not really..especially if you are in different eras.

I generally agree that new sports are better than old sports...Jamal Lewis would be looked at as one of the greatest ever if you put him in Jim Browns era and our Brown in this era.

That’s largely true.

A guy like Okafor probably would have been a several time AS in the 90s but he struggles to get minutes now.

Different styles, more athleticism, expanded skill sets.

Still, when you are talking about pure teams, I don’t think you see much difference. You also have more players playing for themselves nowadays. More me me me, social media, etc...that impacts on how good teams end up being imo.

I am not even talking about this in terms of players being better now or differences in how the game is played.

I am simply noting that the league was in a down time in terms of overall talent, plus that talent was diluted further due to adding 6 teams through expansion (2 teams in 88 and then again in 89, and then 2 more in 95).

[mweb08]

I think those teams could have competed well with these Finals teams from the last 20 years...

'00 Pacers
'01 76ers
'02 and '03 Nets
'04 (Champs) and '05 Pistons
'04 Lakers
'06 Mavericks
'07 Cavs
'08 Lakers
'09 Magic
'11 Maverics (Champs)
'15, '16 (Champs), '17, '18 Cavs
'19 Raptors (Champs)

Yes to those early 2000's East teams and some other East teams as time went on, but those Pistons teams, Lakers teams, Mavs teams, recent Cavs teams, and last year's Raptors were easily better IMO.

[SportsGuy]

I am not even talking about this in terms of players being better now or differences in how the game is played.
I am simply noting that the league was in a down time in terms of overall talent, plus that talent was diluted further due to adding 6 teams through expansion (2 teams in 88 and then again in 89, and then 2 more in 95).

And I’m ok with this thought.

But, per usual, the best talent was on a handful or less of teams and those teams were still very good.

I don’t disagree that there are a few teams that we have seen the last 10 or so years that some of them would struggle to compete with but the large majority of the great teams are similar in terms of them being able to compete at a high level in any era.

[mweb08]

And I’m ok with this thought.

But, per usual, the best talent was on a handful or less of teams and those teams were still very good.

I don’t disagree that there are a few teams that we have seen the last 10 or so years that some of them would struggle to compete with but the large majority of the great teams are similar in terms of them being able to compete at a high level in any era.

They really weren't that good. Like look at those Utah Finals teams and remember that Malone (he was still elite for that time) and Stockton (averaged 12.0 ppg + 8.5 ast in 98) were both past their athletic primes. But then look at that the rest of the roster. Besides Hornacek, none of those guys are really even starting quality players on good teams (maybe Russell as your 5th best guy?). That was a team that won 126 games in 2 seasons and made it to back to back Finals?!?

The recent Clippers team with CP3, Blake, and company were a similar team, but actually more talented.

[mweb08]

ESPN's Get Up staff this morning was saying they estimated Jordan would have averaged 40+ ppg in his prime if playing today, with the additional possessions, three more 3's per game, and lack of physicality / hand-checking he faced in his era.

Btw, if you compare the points per game of the league during LeBron's career vs the points per game during MJ's Bulls years, there were actually on average 4.2 more points scored per game in the latter.

[BSLChrisStoner]