I'm still waiting to hear KVH explain how all his mega-athletic stars lost to Greece??
that doesnt relate to the current discussion unless you and batmon are contending that international teams were just as good in the 60s and 70s... but i think we can all agree that international players, on the whole, have improved tremendously over the years.
I'm still waiting to hear KVH explain how all his mega-athletic stars lost to Greece??
that doesnt relate to the current discussion unless you and batmon are contending that international teams were just as good in the 60s and 70s... but i think we can all agree that international players, on the whole, have improved tremendously over the years.
U stated that fundamentals are overated and that players are bigger/stronger/faster than the 60/70 cats.
"fundamentals" is not a synonym for skill. current nba players have a lot of skills but are criticized for not being fundamentally sound. to me, this refers to free throw shooting and a lot of intangibles like boxing out, team work, and other things that can't be statistically measured.
are current players less fundamentally sound? maybe, but people should really blame the coaches, general managers and owners for the lack of team play which should be everyone's biggest gripe with the current nba. very few teams utilize their point guards. accordingly, you end up with a useless guard dribbling the ball to half court and then just sitting and waiting to get it to the team's go-to-guy, who then proceeds to go one-on-one. that is the nba in a nutshell right now. if the nba utlized its point guards (or got the ball in the post every time down the floor) you would have more teamwork and more exciting games. Pheonix is a great example of utilizing their pg and San Antonio is a throwback cause they do both. Miami is the exception, but they took a page out of the Jordan era, as it seems like they run a triangle type offense.
KVH.....the first year I remember watching basketball was 1967...the team I remember most was the NBA Champion 76ers......Since that is as far as I can go back and speak with any knowledge let's compare them to the last San Antonio Championship Team......and honestly, who would you bet YOUR money on?? Or better yet, tell me what match ups you think San Antonio has the advantage on. Remember, these were the best teams in the NBA in their respective years. The numbers are what each player averaged for that year.
76ers / Spurs
Wilt 24.1 Pts. 24.2 Rebs / Tim Duncan 20.3 Pts 11.1 Reb Hal Greer 22.7 Pts. 4 Ast 5 Reb / Tony Parker 16 Pts. 6 Ast. Billy Cunningham 18.5 Pts. 7 Reb / Manu Ginobilli 16 Pts. 3 Ast. Chet Walker 19.3 Pts. 8 Reb / Bruce Bowen 8 Pts. 4 Reb Luke Jackson 12 Pts. 9 Reb / Glenn Robinson 10 Pts. 2 Reb
6th Man Wali Jones 13 Pts. / Brent Barry 7 Pts. 2 Reb
The Sixers shot over 50% from the field for the year!!!
They won their games by an average of 11 Pts per game
And they averaged 125 points per game!!!!!!!
Now you truly believe that he best team in the NBA in 2003 would beat the best team in the NBA in 1967???
And as far as Greece Vs. USA goes the only point is that a good fundamental team(Greece) beats a bunch of hellaciously talented and athletic modern NBA players who seemed lost on how to even defend a simple pick and roll.
KVH.....the first year I remember watching basketball was 1967...the team I remember most was the NBA Champion 76ers......Since that is as far as I can go back and speak with any knowledge let's compare them to the last San Antonio Championship Team......and honestly, who would you bet YOUR money on??
the '67 sixers ( arguably the greatest team ever) would win. no doubt. that doesnt mean that there were better players in the 60s though.
as i said before, there were a lot less teams so the talent was spread around. also, there wasn't a draft and, correct me if i'm wrong, but each player's home town had first dibs. that sixers team had a bunch of philadelphia natives on it, who just happened to be some of the greatest players philly has ever produced!
a better comparison would be to find out who the average nba players were in '67 and compare them to bench players of today. i guarantee you that their respective basketball accomplishments will be a huge contrast. it was much easier to make an nba squad back then. i know a few guys who are unbeliebable basketball players that don't have a chance in hell of making it to the nba. it's a different time. we do agree that there were great players in every decade. the minor area where we disagree is in the overall talent level of the league.
it was much easier to make an nba squad back then.
These two statements contradict themselves....there were less slots in the league, yet somehow it was 'easier" to make an NBA Team.....doesn't make sense.
On the contrary, the fact that there were alomost 1/2 as many teams Pre-ABA merger meant that 1) It was harder to make a team than today....and 2) The overall talent level was higher.
Now I'll get into possible politically incorrect territory....
When the color barrier was broken and the league began to be dominated by the black player there were TWO major factors involved....
1) The black player brought an athleticism that was never seen in the game before. The transition from 50's to 60's was light years. Very few if ANY players from the early 50's could have played in the league a mere 10-15 years later. Some of them might have been lucky enough to land a gig with the Washington Generals playing against the Globetrotters.
2) The 60's black athlete learned the game in a very basic fundamental way and the combination of athleticsm and fundamentals is one that can't be beat. Don Haskins proved that to the world when West Texas State beat Kentucky. As you mentioned earlier, even the flashy players back then were white guys(Cousy, Pistol Pete, Hot Rod Hundley)
In my opinion, the NBA peaked in the 60's & 70's as far as having the perfect balance of fundamentals and athleticism.
Think about the College teams that are perennially on top...the Duke's of the world, great fundamental teams that can beat the athletic competition but most players from those teams either fail or become mediocre NBA players.
Basketball today is more of a Side Show...a Circus....Slam Dunk Contests, And One.....and don't get me wrong, it's great...I just don't think that as far as the game goes it at's it highest level of play.
Keith, this is a losing cause for you man. Too many old people in here.
Anyway, two things can be said:
1) Players are undoubtedly more athletic. Why? Because they train harder. They probably spend more time in the gym, hit the weights harder, etc. What does that mean? Some of the best overall talents are emerging at each position every year...Pound for pound, some of these new cats are truly incredible. Say in a fantasy world you throw in a Dwyane Wade or Lebron James or Chris Paul in the 70s or 80s. I say they fare pretty damn well. (and I think that's the point Keithvanhorn is making).
2) Players back then played smarter and more efficent. Larry Bird is a good example of how strong will and smart play won him many games despite the fact that he wasn't the craziest athlete. You also take a look at the Olympic games of Team USA and you notice that players are trying to take 2 or even 3 defenders to the rack. This is not smart basketball. So definitely the old school cats played with better fundamentals. And I will add that I am an advocate of this style of play.
Peace.
Big Yuichi from Cali
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Yeah, Randy Smith is totally forgotten but Elvin Hayes never gets any props from the current generation either b/c he wasn't flashy. He was just one awesome pure power forward. Plus, he beat Kareem in college in the "Game of the Century".
I think the lack of team play speaks for itself at the World Championships.
Man, I used to watch "The Big E" play weekly at the Capital Center. I grew up in Maryland. I fully respect that man. One of the best PFs to ever lace up the sneakers. His turnaround jumper on the baseline was patented.
it was much easier to make an nba squad back then.
These two statements contradict themselves....there were less slots in the league, yet somehow it was 'easier" to make an NBA Team.....doesn't make sense.
On the contrary, the fact that there were alomost 1/2 as many teams Pre-ABA merger meant that 1) It was harder to make a team than today....and 2) The overall talent level was higher.
Duh! The league is watered down more because there are more teams playing, hence more players, that wouldn't make a team otherwise are getting jobs simply because they need more players. They also upped the number of players each team can have from 12 to 15 so you've got more bench warmers than EVER.
Did KVH just say that because there are 1/3 more teams they are 1/3 more talented???????
it was much easier to make an nba squad back then.
These two statements contradict themselves....there were less slots in the league, yet somehow it was 'easier" to make an NBA Team.....doesn't make sense.
On the contrary, the fact that there were alomost 1/2 as many teams Pre-ABA merger meant that 1) It was harder to make a team than today....and 2) The overall talent level was higher.
Duh! The league is watered down more because there are more teams playing, hence more players, that wouldn't make a team otherwise are getting jobs simply because they need more players. They also upped the number of players each team can have from 12 to 15 so you've got more bench warmers than EVER.
Did KVH just say that because there are 1/3 more teams they are 1/3 more talented???????
i'll give up trying to make my case for the young players, BUT, let me just clarify the watered down comment, which i still believe is true.
The fact that there are 1/3 more teams means that you can't look at the current league and say that there are more bad players without considering that there are many more players. On a percentage basis, I believe there are more talented players today. The proof is that we now draw from a much bigger pool. There are more college teams with nba caliber players and we now have an international market which did not exist back then. Accordingly, it is much harder to get into the league, despite the fact that there are more teams. In the 60s and 70s the concentration of talent was at the college powerhouses. Now we have a lot of mid-range colleges with great basketball programs (Gonzaga) + high school players + international. College stars are not locks to even make an nba team. It was not like this in the 60s and 70s. Okay????
The number of teams in the NBA has no correlation to whether the players on each team are talented or not. To say that because there are more teams and more players available = harder to make an NBA team today also do not correlate. The number of spots available increases with the number of teams. The increase in NBA teams happened at the same time that more players from High School and from foreign countries started turning pro. Also the number of players on each team expanded from 12 to 15 making even more spots available. There also use to be 5 to 6 rounds in the NBA draft, now there are only 2 if you want to get an idea of how many players were availble for NBA teams back in the day.
Nope. But I have cable now, which means a lot of basketball, but not enough time to watch much. Otherwise, I would be dropping expert analysis on yall.
I signed up for League Pass this morning and saw that I now have NBA TV as a part of that package.
What was your question about it?
I just wondered about the price. And will you have enuff time to catch the games? At least youll be able to watch other teams besides the same 7 teams TNT/TBS recycles.
I signed up for League Pass this morning and saw that I now have NBA TV as a part of that package.
What was your question about it?
I just wondered about the price. And will you have enuff time to catch the games? At least youll be able to watch other teams besides the same 7 teams TNT/TBS recycles.
I'm not sure what the individual price for NBA TV is. As far as I know, it's either included in certain cable/sattelite packages or you get it when you purchase League Pass (~$160 for the season).
I primarialy got it to see Pistons games, everything else is icing on the cake (a shit load of icing!).
Just like you were sayin', if you take a look at the ESPN/TNT schedules, not only are games only shown just a couple/few days a week, but it's mostly just big market teams or ones somebody determined in the offseason would be a hot match-ups.
I'm looking forward to flipping around between several games on any given night for an entire season. So many other players and teams I want to keep an eye on around the league.
You betta believe it. I could care less about analyst opinions anyway. I can watch the games myself and make judgements. "Shaq is the most dominant force in the league", "Kobe can integrate better with his teammates". Please. You call that expert analysis?
Comments
that doesnt relate to the current discussion unless you and batmon are contending that international teams were just as good in the 60s and 70s... but i think we can all agree that international players, on the whole, have improved tremendously over the years.
U stated that fundamentals are overated and that players are bigger/stronger/faster than the 60/70 cats.
So pure athleticism > fundamentals.............
"we talkin 'bout practice?"
are current players less fundamentally sound? maybe, but people should really blame the coaches, general managers and owners for the lack of team play which should be everyone's biggest gripe with the current nba. very few teams utilize their point guards. accordingly, you end up with a useless guard dribbling the ball to half court and then just sitting and waiting to get it to the team's go-to-guy, who then proceeds to go one-on-one. that is the nba in a nutshell right now. if the nba utlized its point guards (or got the ball in the post every time down the floor) you would have more teamwork and more exciting games. Pheonix is a great example of utilizing their pg and San Antonio is a throwback cause they do both. Miami is the exception, but they took a page out of the Jordan era, as it seems like they run a triangle type offense.
76ers / Spurs
Wilt 24.1 Pts. 24.2 Rebs / Tim Duncan 20.3 Pts 11.1 Reb
Hal Greer 22.7 Pts. 4 Ast 5 Reb / Tony Parker 16 Pts. 6 Ast.
Billy Cunningham 18.5 Pts. 7 Reb / Manu Ginobilli 16 Pts. 3 Ast.
Chet Walker 19.3 Pts. 8 Reb / Bruce Bowen 8 Pts. 4 Reb
Luke Jackson 12 Pts. 9 Reb / Glenn Robinson 10 Pts. 2 Reb
6th Man
Wali Jones 13 Pts. / Brent Barry 7 Pts. 2 Reb
The Sixers shot over 50% from the field for the year!!!
They won their games by an average of 11 Pts per game
And they averaged 125 points per game!!!!!!!
Now you truly believe that he best team in the NBA in 2003 would beat the best team in the NBA in 1967???
And as far as Greece Vs. USA goes the only point is that a good fundamental team(Greece) beats a bunch of hellaciously talented and athletic modern NBA players who seemed lost on how to even defend a simple pick and roll.
the '67 sixers ( arguably the greatest team ever) would win. no doubt. that doesnt mean that there were better players in the 60s though.
as i said before, there were a lot less teams so the talent was spread around. also, there wasn't a draft and, correct me if i'm wrong, but each player's home town had first dibs. that sixers team had a bunch of philadelphia natives on it, who just happened to be some of the greatest players philly has ever produced!
a better comparison would be to find out who the average nba players were in '67 and compare them to bench players of today. i guarantee you that their respective basketball accomplishments will be a huge contrast. it was much easier to make an nba squad back then. i know a few guys who are unbeliebable basketball players that don't have a chance in hell of making it to the nba. it's a different time. we do agree that there were great players in every decade. the minor area where we disagree is in the overall talent level of the league.
These two statements contradict themselves....there were less slots in the league, yet somehow it was 'easier" to make an NBA Team.....doesn't make sense.
On the contrary, the fact that there were alomost 1/2 as many teams Pre-ABA merger meant that 1) It was harder to make a team than today....and 2) The overall talent level was higher.
Now I'll get into possible politically incorrect territory....
When the color barrier was broken and the league began to be dominated by the black player there were TWO major factors involved....
1) The black player brought an athleticism that was never seen in the game before. The transition from 50's to 60's was light years. Very few if ANY players from the early 50's could have played in the league a mere 10-15 years later. Some of them might have been lucky enough to land a gig with the Washington Generals playing against the Globetrotters.
2) The 60's black athlete learned the game in a very basic fundamental way and the combination of athleticsm and fundamentals is one that can't be beat. Don Haskins proved that to the world when West Texas State beat Kentucky. As you mentioned earlier, even the flashy players back then were white guys(Cousy, Pistol Pete, Hot Rod Hundley)
In my opinion, the NBA peaked in the 60's & 70's as far as having the perfect balance of fundamentals and athleticism.
Think about the College teams that are perennially on top...the Duke's of the world, great fundamental teams that can beat the athletic competition but most players from those teams either fail or become mediocre NBA players.
Basketball today is more of a Side Show...a Circus....Slam Dunk Contests, And One.....and don't get me wrong, it's great...I just don't think that as far as the game goes it at's it highest level of play.
Anyway, two things can be said:
1) Players are undoubtedly more athletic. Why? Because they train harder. They probably spend more time in the gym, hit the weights harder, etc. What does that mean? Some of the best overall talents are emerging at each position every year...Pound for pound, some of these new cats are truly incredible. Say in a fantasy world you throw in a Dwyane Wade or Lebron James or Chris Paul in the 70s or 80s. I say they fare pretty damn well. (and I think that's the point Keithvanhorn is making).
2) Players back then played smarter and more efficent. Larry Bird is a good example of how strong will and smart play won him many games despite the fact that he wasn't the craziest athlete. You also take a look at the Olympic games of Team USA and you notice that players are trying to take 2 or even 3 defenders to the rack. This is not smart basketball. So definitely the old school cats played with better fundamentals. And I will add that I am an advocate of this style of play.
Peace.
Big Yuichi from Cali
Man, I used to watch "The Big E" play weekly at the Capital Center. I grew up in Maryland. I fully respect that man. One of the best PFs to ever lace up the sneakers. His turnaround jumper on the baseline was patented.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Duh! The league is watered down more because there are more teams playing, hence more players, that wouldn't make a team otherwise are getting jobs simply because they need more players. They also upped the number of players each team can have from 12 to 15 so you've got more bench warmers than EVER.
Did KVH just say that because there are 1/3 more teams they are 1/3 more talented???????
i'll give up trying to make my case for the young players, BUT, let me just clarify the watered down comment, which i still believe is true.
The fact that there are 1/3 more teams means that you can't look at the current league and say that there are more bad players without considering that there are many more players. On a percentage basis, I believe there are more talented players today. The proof is that we now draw from a much bigger pool. There are more college teams with nba caliber players and we now have an international market which did not exist back then. Accordingly, it is much harder to get into the league, despite the fact that there are more teams. In the 60s and 70s the concentration of talent was at the college powerhouses. Now we have a lot of mid-range colleges with great basketball programs (Gonzaga) + high school players + international. College stars are not locks to even make an nba team. It was not like this in the 60s and 70s. Okay????
I signed up for League Pass this morning and saw that I now have NBA TV as a part of that package.
What was your question about it?
I just wondered about the price. And will you have enuff time to catch the games?
At least youll be able to watch other teams besides the same 7 teams TNT/TBS recycles.
I'm not sure what the individual price for NBA TV is. As far as I know, it's either included in certain cable/sattelite packages or you get it when you purchase League Pass (~$160 for the season).
I primarialy got it to see Pistons games, everything else is icing on the cake (a shit load of icing!).
Just like you were sayin', if you take a look at the ESPN/TNT schedules, not only are games only shown just a couple/few days a week, but it's mostly just big market teams or ones somebody determined in the offseason would be a hot match-ups.
I'm looking forward to flipping around between several games on any given night for an entire season. So many other players and teams I want to keep an eye on around the league.
You betta believe it. I could care less about analyst opinions anyway. I can watch the games myself and make judgements. "Shaq is the most dominant force in the league", "Kobe can integrate better with his teammates". Please. You call that expert analysis?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0610/gallery.veterans.nba/content.7.html