Question for everyone

[Wolverine]

I was watching a Bird highlight video today, and started looking at stats from some of the '80s and '90s best players (HOFers, such as Bird, Hakeem, Magic, ect.), and my question is this:

Are today's players simply not as good as yesteryear's, and if not, what's the reason for the older players superior stats?

I often hear about the '80s 'up-tempo' play, and while that certainly can have an impact, is that the sole reason?  Or are today's players inferior - or not as 'complete' - when compared to the old-timers?

Just something I was thinking about ...

[SPURSX3]

Could it be rule changes in todays league as compared to yesteryear...just a thought.  Players seemed to be allowed more freedom on offense and defense and just really go out there and play.  I could be wrong on that but it's just an observation.  IMO players were allowed to be tougher with each other and really man up out there on the floor.  I am thinking more so of the 80's rather then the 90's on this by the way. 

[Derek Bodner]

defenses are drastically more advanced now than they were 25-30 years ago.  rule changes do as well.  And the change in pace is very important as well.

And the 80's were just an amazing period for basketball.

I think it's a combination, with those being the main 4 culprits.

[SPURSX3]

defenses are drastically more advanced now than they were 25-30 years ago.  rule changes do as well.  And the change in pace is very important as well.

And the 80's were just an amazing period for basketball.

I think it's a combination, with those being the main 4 culprits.

Also, players today are major investments for teams, and not only the franchise but players and agents all want them to stay as healthy as possible.  Which, again IMO, cut back on some of the tough or high octane play in games.  Winning back then was for the glory.  Today it seems to be "for the glory if I can get my fat paycheck."  Of course....we could be asking the same question 2 decades from now and think that the teams from right now were more worthy then the "present day" teams.....wow, if we are still on this board two decades from now Derek you're going to have to hunt each of us down and slap us across the face.

[ziggy]

In my opinion it is first and foremost a function of pace.  Compare the 1980's to the 1960's and you see the same thing, the 60's looks so much better, but that is largely a result of pace.

Why has the pace slowed so much? 
First is defense today is far better than the the 80's and the 80's was better than the 60's.

Second the standard deviation from the average player to the top and the median player to the bottom is far less.  The average player has improved and the bottom end has improved, but the top end has not improved as much if at all.  The difference between Magic and the median player was greater than the difference between LeBron or Kobe and the median player.  With less variation top to bottom, then the competition is tighter, meaning each possession is more important, meaning there is a greater emphasis on each possession.

Rule changes have also changed pace and the style of play.

Finally coaching has changed.

[Joe Vancil]

I agree that pace is a huge contributing factor.  But I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that expansion has hurt as well.  While I agree with Ziggy that the difference from top-to-bottom is closer than it was years ago, the talent JUST AT THE TOP of the average team has decreased. 

I'm also going to blame the younger players who come into the game drafted on their "potential" rather than proven track record.  I also think the salary structure - and the fact that some teams make money by "going cheap" as a factor.

Finally, I'm going to blame the 3-pointer.  The use of the 3-pointer has grown and grown and grown, and percentages on it have gone up and up and up.  What this leads to is fewer and fewer back-to-the-basket big men, and when you look at teams that routinely won across the 80's, you'll find elite back-to-the-basket big men.  As a result, running was the best way to neutralize the big men.  And in the current generation, as the "sexy" thing became having an uber-athlete at the 2 or 3 spot rather than a back-to-the-basket big man, offenses as a whole suffered.  Those SG/SF elite-athlete players don't look to run;  why should they run when they're going to get the ball and go into isolation when they get to the other end anyway?  With half-court going from being dominated by players who shoot in the 52-55% range to being dominated by players who shoot in the 44-47% range, you're losing in scoring.

[westkoast]

Finally, I'm going to blame the 3-pointer.  The use of the 3-pointer has grown and grown and grown, and percentages on it have gone up and up and up.  What this leads to is fewer and fewer back-to-the-basket big men, and when you look at teams that routinely won across the 80's, you'll find elite back-to-the-basket big men.

I was going to say this as well.  The long ball drives down points because it is such a low percentage shot.  If you think about it the fact teams that teams like Phoenix could score 115 points a night on the regular while relying so much on the 3 is pretty impressive.  I don't think the stars of yesteryear would be able to do that.

And in the current generation, as the "sexy" thing became having an uber-athlete at the 2 or 3 spot rather than a back-to-the-basket big man, offenses as a whole suffered.

My question to you guys is how much of this do you think falls on the shoulders of coaches are various levels?  IMO it's easier to coach a smaller perimeter player who's position can get by on athletic ability than it is to coach a big man who has to be more fundamentally sound to really dominate the paint on both ends of the floor.  If you can run fast enough you will get yourself baskets eventually.  Just because you are tall doesn't mean you will score in the paint.  Personally I think telling a Lebron James to out run the person guarding him down the floor is easier than teaching Greg Oden footwork to be able to get himself into a good position to score.

[Joe Vancil]

Never underestimate what a coach will do to try to *WIN*.  If that means teaching a big man fundamentals, they'll do it.

I think the problem is that big men don't *WANT* to be big men.  Consider our friend Wolvie there.  When he started playing, he played very much a face-up kind of game - much like his cousin, who, at the time, was also a face-up player, and at the time was much better.  And Wolverine's cousin is a *VERY* mechanical player, who could have enjoyed some success by developing power moves down low.

Caleb actually developed his back-to-the-basket game...his cousin didn't.  As a result, Caleb now has a real, back-to-the-basket, low-post game.  (Or at least he did until he left for Minnesota.)  He's got a drop-step, and learned a jump-hook to off-set it.  Now Caleb can still go out and shoot a 3-pointer - but he's more likely to decide to set up on the low-left block, and take his player of a drop-step or a jump-hook.  He's a whole lot more effective, and since developing that game, I doubt his cousin has beaten him.

Almost no one - Caleb being one of the exceptions - looks at players like Tim Duncan and Dwight Howard and even Shaquille O'Neal, and says, "That's winning basketball being played right there."  The mechanical player thinks that he can develop the game of LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan (which is where most of this mentality came from).  Yet the skills that could potentially make that player successful are seen as "boring."  And don't get me wrong - big-man basketball has a boring component to it.  But I believe it's still the most effective way to play.

Caleb - what's your take on this - why is "big-man" basketball so out-of-vogue?

[westkoast]

Never underestimate what a coach will do to try to *WIN*.  If that means teaching a big man fundamentals, they'll do it.

Of course but what I was getting at was more along the lines of some coaches just unable to teach players those fundmentals.  Either because they just are not very good coaches or don't really know how to handle that.

 For example, Brian Shaw and Kurt Rambis were unable to teach Andrew Bynum how to truly play in the post which is why the Lakers staff asked Kareem to step in.  Dwight Howard didn't learn his post moves from Stan Van Gundy but rather from Patrick Ewing.

[Wolverine]

I think you explained it pretty well, Joe.

In fact, in one of Bill Simmons' recent ESPN articles, he mentions talking to his father about TD.  More specifically, he asked if he would read an entire column about Duncan.  His dad said, "An ENTIRE column?  Just about Duncan?  I don't think so.  He's kinda boring."

And that's the prevailing view of the Big Fundamental.  I mean, his nickname is THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL for crying out loud!  Moses Malone has more personality than Duncan, and Malone was dropped on his head at such a young age that he never learned to speak English.

So that's a big part of the problem right there.  Why is And1 so popular?  It's supposedly exciting.  Of course, it's bad basketball, but in this society where we all have ADD, anything shiny or sexy - even if it's the wrong way of doing things - will grab our attention quicker than a combination of boring and the right way.

I don't understand, myself.  Tim Duncan is amazing; one of the biggest winners in the history of the sport, and yet because he's not "boring", no one emulates his game.  That, in my opinion, says a lot of about where basketball is headed.

"I could win championships playing this way, but I won't get the endorsement deals or legions of fans, so screw it."

[Wolverine]

I agree that pace is a huge contributing factor.  But I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that expansion has hurt as well.  While I agree with Ziggy that the difference from top-to-bottom is closer than it was years ago, the talent JUST AT THE TOP of the average team has decreased.

The Sports Guy agrees with you.  In his Book of Baskeball (AMAZING, by the way), he takes shots at expansion any chance he gets.

It's been interesting reading about how almost every team had two franchise players, another one or two All-Stars and a bunch of really solid role players back in the 70s and early-to-mid 80s.

Here's a quote from the book, discussing the expansion of the NBA in the 70s:

"After all, nothing ruins a sports league faster than overexpansion, diluted teams and the death of rivalries, right?  Gary Bettman ignored these lessons and tried a similar strategy with the NHL, nearly destroying it in the process.  And he came from the NBA!  I love professional sports."

And I love Bill Simmons.

[westkoast]

Wolv, And1 hasn't been popular in a good 5 years heh.  Really it was very flash in the pan.  I don't think that is a good example. 

Tim Duncan is 'boring' to some people because of his personality.  I don't think it's his game as much as it is  when he does interviews, they are boring.  His life outside of basketball is viewed as boring.  Guys like Shaq, who has personality outside of basketball, is not seen that way.  Notice this is not said about KG, it's not like his game is any more exciting than Duncan's but he shows a lot more passion.  He is out there more often.  Duncan is not, for whatever reason.  Whether it's his choice or he is not being asked.  I don't know.

IMO what is going to happen is the league is going to shift again.  While the focus has been on big men who have jumpers and can play on the perimeter as the last of the big men dies out (Ming, Duncan, and Shaq are gone in the next few) I think a team like say Portland or Los Angeles is going to have a lot of success being one of the few teams with more traditional big men.  Orlando right now is having a lot of success for that reason.

 People did want to emulate Shaq's game (Eddy Curry  comes to mind even if he did fall short) and I think people would emulate Duncan's if they were able to.  It is very rare to not only find a 7 foot player but a 7 foot player who is VERY coordinated.  Then you have to have the right coaches to teach those fundamentals.  It's easier to developed a smaller player because they are not semi-handicapped by their size/height.

[rickortreat]

It's not expansion, there are more teams, but there are more players now as well. Players don't get taught the right way at any level, and leave college early. They are brought in based on potential, not polished skills, and the coaches aren't all that proficient at teaching the basics, and most players don't realize how deficient they are.

Basketball was played at a much higher level in the early days, but with inferior athletes. Then as today, the key to winning is a big man in the post, except when there are no dominant big men on the other good teams. Boston won all those Championships because they had Bill Russell all those years. But there aren't too many 6'11" athletes who had the same preparation growing up that Russell did.  He spent 4 years in College before he came out. Bill Russel would have been drafted straight out of high school if he was coming out today.  No one gets the training or the understanding and there are too few big men around for it to become proper knowledge thoughout the sport.

The athletes today are better in every way, except that the are dumber, more arrogant, less disciplined and the league has become more lax with it's rules and enforcement of double-dribbles, traveling, etc.

They make it easier to score these days, no more hand-checking, the three-point shot.. but teams score less because they don't play team ball anymore and players don't shoot from outside as well as they used to because they all want to be able to drive to the basket. Short guys used to stay out of the paint, because they would get clobbered, so they learned to shoot from outside. Now, they have learned to drive the lane, and the league softened the rules so they could do so without worrying about needing stitches.

Crap, they don't even know how to defend anymore which is why they now allow zone defenses! The game is watered down in terms of quality. It may be a bit more entertaining, and flashy, but fundamentally, they suck.

[jemagee]

Wolv, And1 hasn't been popular in a good 5 years heh.  Really it was very flash in the pan.  I don't think that is a good example. 

No but it was part of a growing 'highlight' culture in basketball (and other sports) as well...the fundamentals don't get you on ESPN or a big shoe contract or the big endorsements...you need the highlight dunks the behind the back pass when the bounce pass will do (yeah, you Andre Iguodala) and the guys coming into the league now have grown up 'fully' in that culture...there are less and less 'inflection point' players less who grew up in the 'older' team oriented culture but can exist in this highlight driven culture.

There are still those who do learn to play the game the 'right way' and the fundamentals - but it's not something that is going to START when a kid hits the NBA, it has to start in high school and develop in college...in my opinion.