This is why the NBA is entertainment

[Drebin]

The 80s and ealy-mid90s was a ridiculous time in NBA basketball when it came to physical play. The pendulum had swung way too far one way at that point in time.

You say stars today would have been common players back then, well maybe.
And many of the memorable enforcing stars of that era wouldn't see the court for more than 15min each game these days because they 1- weren't reliable enough on offense and/or 2- would quickly pick up 6 fouls.

If fouls had been called better back then, play would have adjusted and much of you fondly remember wouldn't have happened. Basically, you long for a time when refs didn't call fouls like they do now. There was some crazy hard play in the paint that was not called, even though it violated rules. There was some crazy hard hand checking on the prrimeter that was not called, even though it violated rules.


No matter which way you look at it, many of the stars back then were successful because they got away with things. Wrestling on the court isn't something I miss, even though I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way at this point.

No, stars were successful back then because they were good. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan wouldn't be averaging 15 minutes and fouling out today, they'd be the three best players in the league today. Because they were that good, and they'd be even better with the rules in place today. Good lord, Jordan and Bird, in particular (and to a lesser extent guys like Chuck Person and Dominique Wilkins) would be hanging 50 most nights. Dell Curry was as good as Steph Curry, and Steph would tell you that himself. The fact that they had to be creative with their offensive skillset to play through contact made them even better than the guys today who are more skilled at throwing their legs into a defender on a jumpshot to get a quick three shot foul. In their era, every team had an enforcer and a big guy in the middle. There wasn't a whole bunch of ISOs and jumping into your opponent on three point attempts to draw cheap contact. It was more of a team game back then - because it had to be.

Lebron played in the 80s and 90s. His name then was Karl Malone. Same body, same athleticism, same skillset. And Karl Malone was great, but not considered the goat. The only difference between Karl and Lebron is that I never saw Karl take a flop.

 

[mstateglfr]

No, stars were successful back then because they were good. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan wouldn't be averaging 15 minutes and fouling out today, they'd be the three best players in the league today. Because they were that good, and they'd be even better with the rules in place today. Good lord, Jordan and Bird, in particular (and to a lesser extent guys like Chuck Person and Dominique Wilkins) would be hanging 50 most nights. Dell Curry was as good as Steph Curry, and Steph would tell you that himself. The fact that they had to be creative with their offensive skillset to play through contact made them even better than the guys today who are more skilled at throwing their legs into a defender on a jumpshot to get a quick three shot foul. In their era, every team had an enforcer and a big guy in the middle. There wasn't a whole bunch of ISOs and jumping into your opponent on three point attempts to draw cheap contact. It was more of a team game back then - because it had to be.

Lebron played in the 80s and 90s. His name then was Karl Malone. Same body, same athleticism, same skillset. And Karl Malone was great, but not considered the goat. The only difference between Karl and Lebron is that I never saw Karl take a flop.

In 15 years of play we are discussing, there were more than 3 stars/all-stars/franchise players. I wasn't referring to the ones you listed.

And Malone had some similar skills to James, but they do not have the same skillset. F17S. I am not saying James is better, just simply that they have different skillsets.

 

[Drebin]

In 15 years of play we are discussing, there were more than 3 stars/all-stars/franchise players. I wasn't referring to the ones you listed.

And Malone had some similar skills to James, but they do not have the same skillset. F17S. I am not saying James is better, just simply that they have different skillsets.

James and Malone are the same guy. Same size, same athleticism, same skillset. People forget how well Malone ran, how athletic he was, how well he shot it from the outside, and how well he handled the ball, mainly because he played with his back to the basket a lot. Fact is, he would have been more of a perimeter player in this era, and James would have been more of a post player in that area. But yes, their skillset is virtually identical. To deny this is to admit you never saw Malone play at his peak. The primary difference between the two (other than Malone's lack of flopping as referenced earlier) is that Malone played on the block more because that's how the game was played in that era. James was a better overall free throw shooter, but Malone was a better clutch free throw shooter. James can handle the ball a little better, probably because he handles it more. James has probably retained his skillset longer....Malone started showing his age toward the end of his career while James is still playing at a high level, but that probably has a little to do with eras too....Malone played in a far more physically demanding era. But James gets credit for sustained excellence.

 

[johnson86-1]

Is today's shooting in the NBA better? That's a good question.

Here's a link: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

Not exactly sure what all these stats show, but, at first glance, the overall FG shooting in the 80s looks a little better than today's.

Certainly, today's 3-point FG shooting is better. Today's free-throw shooting is a little better too.

That fg% needs to be adjusted for the number of threes taken. For example, the 2pt fg% for the 2020-2021 season was 53.8%. Their overall field goal percentage is dragged down because over 39% of shots were 3 pt attempts. For the 1983-1984, just over 2.7% of FG attempts were 3 pt attempts. So their 2pt FG% (49.88%) is barely different from their overall fg% (49.2%).

Of course if you could compare where shots were taken, the 2 pt field goals in 2020-2021 were probably closer to the goal on average than those taken in 83-84. And for those around the goal, a lot more physical contact would have generally been allowed before a foul would be called, so it's still possible shooters were better in general inside the three point lane in 83-84. I'd bet against, but can't really compare just off 2 pt FG%.

Concerning defense, surely nobody wants to argue that today's defense is better, right? Especially with the way the refs are calling the games today.[/QUOTE]

 

[Smoked Toag]

Couldn't this whole thread be summed up with 'bad officiating'? I mean that is the sole reason why football went from a balanced approach to throwing all over the yard - the officials began protecting the QB. And not saying it's all the officials fault, they are enforcing what they are told by the league(s).

I don't know much about basketball, but listening to you guys, it seems the officials aren't allowing rough play. Well, of course you'll get more finesse and shooting, etc.

 

[thekimmer]

I like to think they are more than that.....like an extension or representation of a city/region/state or something. But the older I get, the more those delusions leave me and I just accept them as the entertainment that they are. That is why I started so many threads in the past about pro sports fandom and what not.

At the end of the day, these teams have owners, and they are just some dude who lives there, like Jerruh. This is why college remains so popular, fans feel as if they are a part of something. There's no singular group in charge. The team /school is more like an idea.

I suppose it depends on what one's definition of entertainment. Certainly there is a competition side of it with other teams and civic pride but I would still put that in the entertainment category based on the premise that professional sports is a business that generates revenue by selling tickets, merchandise, and advertising. Kind of the same as the film and television industry.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It is less physical than before but in the 90s into the 2000s it was getting out of control the other way. Basketball games were becoming slugfests and in the 2000s it got horrendously boring. Final scores would regularly be 80-78. The pendulum has swung back the other way.

 

[mstateglfr]

James and Malone are the same guy. Same size, same athleticism, same skillset. People forget how well Malone ran, how athletic he was, how well he shot it from the outside, and how well he handled the ball, mainly because he played with his back to the basket a lot. Fact is, he would have been more of a perimeter player in this era, and James would have been more of a post player in that area. But yes, their skillset is virtually identical. To deny this is to admit you never saw Malone play at his peak.

Haha, classic. The only possible way this can be disagreed with is if the person doesn't know enough(didn't see Malone in his prime).
It can't possibly be disagreed with for any other reason.
Classic Drebin.



I watched Malone in his prime for many years, but apparently I didn't? 17ing matrix strikes again.

 

[Smoked Toag]

It is less physical than before but in the 90s into the 2000s it was getting out of control the other way. Basketball games were becoming slugfests and in the 2000s it got horrendously boring. Final scores would regularly be 80-78. The pendulum has swung back the other way.

View attachment 24066

 

[mstateglfr]

It is less physical than before but in the 90s into the 2000s it was getting out of control the other way. Basketball games were becoming slugfests and in the 2000s it got horrendously boring. Final scores would regularly be 80-78. The pendulum has swung back the other way.

Exactly.
And maybe it's too far in one directio now, but that doesnt mean the other extreme was how it should be.