# defense: 80s vs today



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

was the overall defense of the nba stronger in the 80s (pick a year)?

were the wing defenders better in the 80s?


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

The greatest, dirtiest, roughest and most intimidating defensive team of all time came from that era in the Bad Boy Pistons and the lowest ppg they EVER allowed was 99!!! back in 1989 so that tells you a lot about how powerfull the offenses were.

Hell the 91 Bulls had AWESOME defense and they allowed 101ppg!!!

Now if those 2 teams, who were better defensively than ANY team now a days (they could also score above 100) couldn't or barely kept teams below 100 points it tells me that something else is going on besides "More sophisticated" defenses.

So to me defenses didn't get that much better, offenses became EASIER to stop. Yo can thank expansion and the salary cap for that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

um the 80's were way inferior on defense there is just a big difference 

the better teams then cared about defense but not with the intsensity that they do now


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

Individual defenders are much better these days, though the league allowed more contact back then. Ron Artest would probably be the best on the ball defender in the 80's if you put him in that era. The average player per position back then was much smaller and less athletic then today.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Teams also concentrated more on Offense during the 80's and b4 that as well....every team wanted to run and push the ball up at any given opportunity. For how many teams can u say that today? Very few. Only 2 teams in the league today run a lot and r still able to stop guyz effectively on the other end - Kings and Nets.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

And both of those teams have something that is a dying breed in the NBA, a true pass first, up tempo PG that doesn't have to look at the coach every freakin time he recieves an outlet pass.

In the 80's the league was FULL of PG's that played that way and the teams were a lot deeper because there were 23 of them with low salaries and no cap. Here are some PG's of that era:

Magic
Isiah
Stockton
Cheeks
DJ
Mark Price
Terry Porter
Mark Jackson
Kevin Johnson
Norm Nixon
Tiny Archibald
Sidney Moncrief
Sleepy Floyd
John Lucas
Sugar Ray Richardson
Fat Lever

That list DWARFS' the present crop by a country mile!!!

The PG's are a teams engine and back in the 80's they were all the race car type.

Now only Jason Kidd, Steve Nash and Bibby fit that mold.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

i certainly dont see all the great defense today that everyone is talking about.dont confuse playing a zone with great defense.there were guys like michael cooper of the lakers who were great defenders who didnt even start.how about the celts with,mchale parish and d.j.,some of the great defenders of all time and philly with mo cheeks,bobby jones and moses malone.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

everyone keeps making references to the best defensive teams and players. isn't it freaking obvious that team, transition, and individual defense is much much better nowadays? with scores in the 120s there isn't a lot of hard nosed defense being player. you have to realize this.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

It's good to see some voices of reason here, but I'm still amazed by these retards who think defenses are better today just because teams were scoring a lot more back then.

That has nothing to do with defenses.

Those guys knew how to play the game and score. That's why they scored more points , not because defenses were bad.

Artest would be the best defender back then?

What the hell are you smoking. Artest would have been playing in the CBA in the 80s

The quality of both offense and defense is crap today. Argentina for Christ sakes did whatever they wanted to do against some of the best defenders in the NBA. Stockton and Malone are still playing at 40+. They swept Kobe and Shaq and better Lakers than these today 2 years in a row. And they were 80s guys over the hill at the time they kicked Kobe and Shaq's azz. How bad do you think they'd beat them if they played them in their prime.

You don't need to speculate, that is your proof right there. 2 80s guys over the hill sweepingthe best ( as you say ) of today, just a few years back. 

What more proof do you need than 2 of the 80s guys playing against today's champs and demolishing them desopite being over the hill and having no center or any other decent teammates.

Guys like Moncrief, Cooper, Dumars don't exist today. 

Even the Bulls were a veteran team with guys who entered the league in the mid 80s and nobody could beat them even when Jordan, Rodman and Harper were over the hill. They won 70 games. That is how bad the younger players are. They couldn't handle 80's players even when these guys reached 35 years of age or more. If thes guys of today played some 80s team in their prime the massacre would be unbearable, worse than Dream team against Angola.

Who cares if guys looked a little less pumped up in the 80s. That's only a detriment to today's guys. The steroids ate away at what little brains they have. They gained size, they lost everything else.
They have no brains or balls.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Artest would be the best defender back then?
> 
> What the hell are you smoking. Artest would have been playing in the CBA in the 80s
> ...


Is there a reason why Stockton and Malone vs. Kobe of Shaq four years ago is stated in almost all of your posts? I didn't think that the Jones/Van Exel/Shaq/young Kobe team was the best out there, rather the one with the most potential. Also, Stockton and Malone were far from over the hill at that point. Those two were among the top two or three at their position. I remember an even older Kareem dominating other teams as he pushed 40. He wasn't over the hill, he was "experienced."


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> It's good to see some voices of reason here, but I'm still amazed by these retards who think defenses are better today just because teams were scoring a lot more back then.
> 
> That has nothing to do with defenses.
> ...


please don't be insulted, and i'm sure you won't be because you're obviously just trolling, but you're probably the worst hater on this site. 
you're so far off its not even funny, it's annoying. ask the most knowledgable people on this site and they will agree that today's defense is better. your examples are ludicrous- the bulls and the jazz were veteran teams, played good defense, and they won. what's your point? defensive prowess often comes with age. there are many great defenders in the L today and many of them are over 30. so what? they're still in today's nba!
then you bring in the US play in the WC? them losing proves the nba's weak defense? of course it doesn't. again, silly example.
ron artest wouldn't have been in the L in the 80s? your credibility is next to nothing at this point. he would have been one of the better defenders of the 80s, just like he is today.

do you look at the nba and only see the young prospects sitting on the bench and playing limited minutes? guys that shouldn't yet be in the nba and haven't learned the game yet? cause that's not the nba! it's much much more than that and contains contains some of the greatest players, offensive and defensive, of all time.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

When it comes down to it people don't give a sh!t how the NBA came to have such low scores, horrible FG%'s, multiple brick laying teams and none existent fast break offense, they ONLY care about the end result.

The end result, unfortunately for the league, is that the style of play in the 80's was 10 times more exciting than what is going on now and nothing's gonna change that.

Why do you think the league has tinkered with so many freaking rules since the mid 90's??? I can tell you it was not to have a league full of teams struggling to break 100 points.

Defense may win championships but Showtime offense is what puts the as!es in the seats!


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> When it comes down to it people don't give a sh!t how the NBA came to have such low scores, horrible FG%'s, multiple brick laying teams and none existent fast break offense, they ONLY care about the end result.
> 
> The end result, unfortunately for the league, is that the style of play in the 80's was 10 times more exciting than what is going on now and nothing's gonna change that.
> ...


wow, great argument! defense doesn't matter cause people just want to see showtime. the question was is defense better, not is defense fun to watch.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> please don't be insulted, and i'm sure you won't be because you're obviously just trolling, but you're probably the worst hater on this site.
> ...



Todays defense IS NOT better. The league is diluted and fundamental skills like a midrange game has disappeared. It's either you dunk or shoot a 3 nowaday. 

Name how many people have unstoppable midrange games nowadays? Kobe? Big Dog? Cassel? Marion?

Teams in the 80's had at least 1-3 players with a solid midrange jumper and game. The poster that pointed out the PG's, nice work. The points back then were a lot stronger. So were the centers. You don't think that makes a difference in how a team is able to score Skywalker?

Scoring has steadily declined because so have the talent levels. The athleticism has increased, and that's it. 7 footers nowadays want to be KG not Kareem. PG's want to be And1 ballers, not Jason Kidd.

It's sad really.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> please don't be insulted, and i'm sure you won't be because you're obviously just trolling, but you're probably the worst hater on this site.
> ...



Todays defense IS NOT better. The league is diluted and fundamental skills like a midrange game has disappeared. It's either you dunk or shoot a 3 nowaday. 

Name how many people have unstoppable midrange games nowadays? Kobe? Big Dog? Cassel? Marion?

Teams in the 80's had at least 1-3 players with a solid midrange jumper and game. The poster that pointed out the PG's, nice work. The points back then were a lot stronger. So were the centers. You don't think that makes a difference in how a team is able to score Skywalker?

Scoring has steadily declined because so have the talent levels. The athleticism has increased, and that's it. 7 footers nowadays want to be KG not Kareem. PG's want to be And1 ballers, not Jason Kidd. Teams can't even run anymore because there are no PG's to lead them. There are maybe 2-4 great running teams nowadays? There were several in the 80's.

It's sad really.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


all you're doing is complaining about today's nba and not proving your point in any way. you've brought up points trying to explain why today's point totals and fg% are down but have failed to argue what made the 80s defense better. were their wing defenders better than today's?

the nba is no longer really diluted- there are many great players fighting for a 10 day contract. there are more than enough great players to supply 29 teams. 

many nba players have good medium range games. dunking isn't the be all and end all but taking it hard to the rim is a very important part of the game that has risen to the forefront along with the 3. i think that number of 3s has increased out of necessity- oppressive defenses make the midrange game more difficult. it's not just nba players falling in love with the outside game, the greatest minds in basketball have incorporated 3 pointers to a greater extent for significant for good reason.

the point guard position is fine, many of them are scorers but often other players take on distributory roles. as the best in the game, players do fashion themselves after kidd. even alston doesn't use his playground moves in the nba so i don't really see where the adulation of andoners comes into play here.
believe it or not, a slow down style of play usually results in better defense being played. also, more teams would be fast breaking if transition defense wasn't strong. 

so, why aren't teams fast breaking? why are teams forced beyond the 3 point line? are defenders not bigger and stronger and quicker than ever? are these not the important physical attributes of defense? do coaches not scout ahead and concentrate on defense more than ever before?

and what on earth is wrong with modeling after KG- he does it all and is one of the best defensive players in the game.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

That's exactly my point. That Malone and Stockton were two of the top at their positions by the time they beat LA in the late 90s.

They were never close to being top anything in the 80s in their prime. When competition disappeared and posers like Kobe and Shaq appeared they became top even though they were already 35 years old and not as good as in the 80s

Do you get it now???????

The reason I mention Utah vs LA is because that is direct proof of a mediocre 80s team beating the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq

You guys can speculate and talk all you want. I am giving real life results.

Utah - LA 4-0

Utah - LA 4-1

San Antonio - LA 4-0

It is only after these teams got even older and could barely walk that LA had a chance ( even then they needed all the refereeing help they could get.

As for the defense, all you need to do is watch. There are more dunks because it's much easier to get around defenders. Most missed shots are wide open or semi open. There are planty opportunities to score , yet they don't.

Nothing makes your defense look better than bad offense.

That's basically what you have today.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

wow you're blinded by hate. you base your entire argument on single examples that have very little to do with the topic. the lakers losing to utah a few years ago has NOTHING to do with the improved defense of today. do you think it has any kind of real bearing or are you just trying to change the subject because you know that you're wrong? i beg of you, try to formulate something that actually resembles an intelligent argument and leave the lakers out of it.

on a separate note out of concern,
do you hate on the league so much simply because the lakers have been winning and that somehow shows you that the league is inferior?


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

No, it mostly that I get bored and feel like I'm watching high school basketball whenever I dial in a channel with an NBA game these days.

So you believe that defense of today means literally TODAY.

I'll have to check, maybe it did get better overnight. Although after just seeing an NBA game where nobody was able to make a single wide open shot for almost 3 minutes I kind of doubt it did get better at either end.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

The 1998 Lakers were one of the Deepest, most athletic and talented teams in the last 10 years, better than ANY present team

C-Shaq, Rooks
PF-Campbell, Blount
SF-Fox, Horry
SG-Jones, Bryant
PG-Van Exel, Fisher, Barry

What happened? Got pimp slapped by Malone, Stockton, Hornacek, Carr, Osterfag and crew.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Exactly, They got embarassed by a couple over the hill 80s guys

Hornacek 35 years old, limping on one good knee

Stockton 36 years old, about 25% slower than in the 80s

Malone 35 years old also about 25% weaker than in the 80s

Worth mentioning they did it without a real center and no other decent help.


And in the 80s in their prime they could never beat LA even though they had a legit center in Eaton and a decent power forward in Bailey.

This is something that should be noted and framed in the hall of fame, because usually you do not get a chance to compare players from differnt eras, but thanks to Utah we have a direct comparison of 80s vs today.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> The 1998 Lakers were one of the Deepest, most athletic and talented teams in the last 10 years, better than ANY present team
> 
> C-Shaq, Rooks
> ...


i'm sorry but this team is not that deep. please check out the blazers and the kings in the past few years. this team looks great on paper but they failed...to a team from the 90s, not the freaking 80s! just because they were playing with awesome veterans means nothing! and they aren't hands down better than every team in the nba...unless that kobe bryant is replaced with today's. 
man, this has NOTHING to do with this argument. i don't give a **** about the lakers. again, try and make a real argument for once. the only pertinent issue is that this lakers team was a decent defensive unit. that's it!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I feel that today's defenses are much better. One reason is better athletes, but advanced scouting along with better video editing are also a factor. Back in the 80's players never watched tape and coaches barely did. Now NBA teams have scouts that are assigned to cover like 5 teams and they can tell you what plays they run and what signals players and coaches use to call that play. They study players moves to the point where one player makes a jab step and the defender already anticipated it.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Hey Jemel, don't you think you should change your sig.

World Champions are Yugoslavia
NBA champs are Lakers ( at least Devid Stern version. )

I mean what's the point of having discussions if even moderators here don't know the difference between world championship and the NBA championship ( then even the NBA championship really belongs to Sacramento )

I might as well pronounce myself the champion of the universe since it seems anybody just calls themselves champions of whatever they want just like that.

And no my friend , Lakers ( the real ones ) used to be my team.

I hate because I hate morons/ would be convicts if it weren't for basketball who can't play.

I don't hate Sacramento, Ray Allen or Tim Duncan and a few other good guys. There is a reason I hate and I wouldn't want it any other way


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> all you're doing is complaining about today's nba and not proving your point in any way.



I'm basically showing that lower scores nowadays doesn't translate to better defense, just a dilution in talent and a focus on the highlight reels. Why do you think the international players are taking over this league? Because they are learning the fundamentals and are better shooters because of it.




> you've brought up points trying to explain why today's point totals and fg% are down but have failed to argue what made the 80s defense better. were their wing defenders better than today's?



Obviously you didn't watch the NBA in the 80's, because if you did we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So you are looking for great one on one defenders? Is that what makes todays NBA better in your opinion? I bet you have never even heard of a guy named T.R. Dunn, have you? Great on ball defender and played the lanes better than most defenders today.

How about Alvin Robertson? Averaged over 3 steals a game for several seasons. Even recorded a triple double with 10 steals one game.

Ever hear of Michael Cooper? Kevin McHale? 2 of the best defenders at their positions EVER. How about Robert Reid? Great one on one defender. Mo Cheeks? Johnny Moore? Nate McMillan?

Remember when guys like Swen Nater, Mark Eaton, Kareem, Parish, Ewing, Moses, Artis Gilmore, Ralph Sampson, Olojawaun, and Bol were clogging lanes?

Do ANY of these names sound familiar?

But the argument isn't about individual defenders is it? It's team defense. Teams had more than one star to contend with back in the day and far more fundamentally sound players. To take a page from Golgors book let's look at the Jazz. A decent team when Stockton and Malone were young and more capable. As the league became more diluted they went to the Finals as old men. You don't see the correlation there? I have more examples if you would like.



> the nba is no longer really diluted- there are many great players fighting for a 10 day contract. there are more than enough great players to supply 29 teams.


There will always be players fighting for 10 day contracts, I can't believe you even said that.



> many nba players have good medium range games. dunking isn't the be all and end all but taking it hard to the rim is a very important part of the game that has risen to the forefront along with the 3. i think that number of 3s has increased out of necessity- oppressive defenses make the midrange game more difficult. it's not just nba players falling in love with the outside game, the greatest minds in basketball have incorporated 3 pointers to a greater extent for significant for good reason.



Many players today have great midrange games huh? Name them. Let's see how many you can come up with, and remember I will call you out if you try and bullisht me. 3's out of necessity huh? I don't think so. Not after watching a 7 footer like Wallace shoot 12 last night. He could have his way with the Laker frontline, but he chose to jack up ill advised 3 after ill advised 3. Teams shoot the 3 more because they only need to shoot 33% to score as much as a team shooting 50% inside the arc. Too bad most coaches don't see the flaws in that philosophy. One of which is that you get no FT attempts jacking 3's. But that's for another thread.



> the point guard position is fine, many of them are scorers but often other players take on distributory roles. as the best in the game, players do fashion themselves after kidd. even alston doesn't use his playground moves in the nba so i don't really see where the adulation of andoners comes into play here.
> believe it or not, a slow down style of play usually results in better defense being played. also, more teams would be fast breaking if transition defense wasn't strong.


Anybody else see the flaws in this paragraph? PG's fashion themselves after Kidd do they? Like Francis? Marbury? Nash? Arenas? Which ones are you talking about? The guys I watch nowadays miss the open man far too much and try to be far to fancy on fast breaks. How many lobs do you see missed a game? I see quite a few. Bounce passes off the glass? I see that quite often without the desired result.



> so, why aren't teams fast breaking? why are teams forced beyond the 3 point line? are defenders not bigger and stronger and quicker than ever? are these not the important physical attributes of defense? do coaches not scout ahead and concentrate on defense more than ever before?



They aren't fast breaking because the PG position is pretty thin these days. We have a ton of undersized SG's playing the position though. Francis and Marbury are perfect examples of that. I watch them play quite often and I can't believe how often they miss the open man or try and do everything themselves. No more great centers or even legitimate big men anymore. How is the fastbreak ignited? From a big man blocking and controlling a shot, or a defensive rebound with a great outlet.

You feel that defenders are quicker and bigger and stronger? Name a few and I'll name some that are quicker, bigger, or stronger. Your ignorance doesn't allow you to see it. Name ONE defender today that is a better low post defender than Kevin McHale. Name a better one on one defender than Michael Cooper. Show me your list of shotblockers from today and I'll show you a longer list from the 80's.



> and what on earth is wrong with modeling after KG- he does it all and is one of the best defensive players in the game.


7 footers should never be as far from the hoop as he finds himself at times. 7 footers big men, not skinny men that can do it all. But that's my own personal preference.

You give me a choice of Tim Duncan or the do it all KG, I take Duncan 10 times out of 10.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> I feel that today's defenses are much better. One reason is better athletes, but advanced scouting along with better video editing are also a factor. Back in the 80's players never watched tape and coaches barely did. Now NBA teams have scouts that are assigned to cover like 5 teams and they can tell you what plays they run and what signals players and coaches use to call that play. They study players moves to the point where one player makes a jab step and the defender already anticipated it.



Defenses are better because players are better athletes? Are you kidding me? Athleticism has nothing to do with if a player is a great defender or not. Vince Carter is the best athlete in the league, would you call him all league defense? Next you'll be saying players today are better shooters and rebounders because they are more athletic. Shaq is more athletic than Moses Malone isn't he? I would rather have Malone defend or grab rebounds for me if I had to choose. There are about a half dozen centers (probably more) that are better defenders than Shaq or any other center in the league. And Shaq is far more athletic than any of them.

And who told you that teams and coaches didn't watch tape back then? Somebody lied to you. There was extensive scouting done back then, and it wasn't just from asst. coaches traveling to games. They did have VCR's back then.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Hey buduan, how come you are agreeing with me on this one?

Come on. Keep it honest.


Tim is Good, KG not as good.

One McHale worth more than both of those together.

What did he average in '86 27-28 pts. a game at 61% shooting?

McHale is the best low post player that ever played the game.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Hey buduan, how come you are agreeing with me on this one?
> 
> Come on. Keep it honest.



I agree with some of what you say, however the way you address people and respond to their opinion is childish and shows no class.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> 
> 
> One McHale worth more than both of those together.
> ...



26 points on 60% actually. And McHale better than both Duncan and KG put together? So if you were starting a team you would take McHale over both of those players?

You exaggerrate far too much. One on one, yes he was better. But you have McHale's entire career to base your opinion off of. Duncan and KG have played what, 6-7 years in the league? When all is said and done they both might be considered far superior to him. Notice I said "might" (before you go on your insult laced tirade.)


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

That's just the way it goes.

Mc Hale just had a very short career, so did Bird really. They were injured and finished by '88.

Another guy most people have already forgotten is Kevin Johnson.
The most underrated player I know of. Had so many injuries, but when healthy the quickest guy I've ever seen, could shoot at 50%+ and managed to beat the great 80s Laker team singlehandedly one year. They just couldn't catch him. He was slashing through at will. Then most of the 90s he spent fighting injuries, but still put up some good numbers. ( and I'm not talking about Shaq boo-boo or Kobe's fake tendinitis, this guys really screwed up his knees and missed a lot of games. )

Garnett or Duncan aren't getting any better. They will play another 8-10 years the same way they are playing now. So what you see now is what you get.

I look at players in their prime, even if that lasts only a couple of years. Therefore 2-3 seasons of McHale in his prime are worth a lot more than 15 years of mediocrity from Duncan or KG ( mediocrity compared to 1980s quality, take Orlando Woolridge for example, anybody remembers him??? Probably not, well, neither duncan or KG would take his spot on a team back when he was healthy circa 85,86 and averaging 23 a game shooting 55% even next to a ball hog like MJ ).
These guys are both around 7 feet. Taller than McHale and they can't shoot over 50% even against much weaker competition . In the grand scheme of things that is pretty bad.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

if any of the guys you're talking about were in today's nba, you'd lump them all together and say they suck too. duncan's just a better all-around player than mchale was at his peak. mchale was a great player, but to think that he'd be differentiating himself from duncan today where you would be saying that mchale is a throwback player and the best player in the nba compared to all these current scrubs is a joke. 

woolridge? you can't really be taken seriously. a typical 80s player who could score and didn't care about anything else. flourished on an awful 1991 nuggets team that scored 129 ppg and gave up much more (20-62). you litterally must be smokin talking about woolridge and reminiscing about the glory years of the nba. he represented what was wrong with the 80s. to compare him to duncan and garnett? well, that's doesn't show much understanding of the game, imo.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Teams in the 80's had at least 1-3 players with a solid midrange jumper and game. The poster that pointed out the PG's, nice work. The points back then were a lot stronger. So were the centers. You don't think that makes a difference in how a team is able to score Skywalker?


Really. Other than the top 4-5 teams name these teams that had 3 players with solid mid range jumpers.....

You guys need to watch some ESPN Classic...80% of the players in the 80's would be in the CBA. Just look at the heights of the starters in the 80's. A player like Mashburn would be elite in the 80's.

Another big difference is the coaches are more controlling now. Call to many plays and that means fewer possesions and fewer fast breaks.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

How about Chicago???

Had Paxon, Jordan, Hodges and Pippen

Finished one place above the bottom in Central Division in 87-88

How about Milwaukee???:

Ricky Pierce, Moncrief, Green, Mike Dunleavy , all 50% or better shooters

How about Dallas??:

Dantley, Harper, Blackman, Shrempf, Perkins, Agguire, with all these didn't make the playoffs that same year

How about Indiana??:

Had Reggie, Chuck Person, Smits, Fleming, finished dead last winning only 28 games

How about Sonics??:

Had Dale Ellis, Mc Millan,Mc Key ,and Threatt 

How about Portland?? with Porter, Drexler, Wandeweghe, didn't make playoffs either.

All teams with three or more very good mid range shooters, most above 50% and most of these teams didn't make playoffs or even finished last in their divisions circa 87 and 88.

Satisfied now?????

And what's height have to do with anything here.

Just means they lie more about that just like they do about everything else today

Players I know personally since I spent time with former Yugo team 

Kukoc listed at 6 - 11 is 6 - 9 1/2

Divac listed at 7- 1 is 6 - 11 1/4

Stojakovic is 6 -7 1/2 listed at 6- 10

Some others I know from reliable sources

Duncan 6 - 10 1/2 they list him at 7 - 0

Garnett same

Novitzki 6 - 9 1/2 listed at 7 feet

Sabonis 7 - 1 listed at 7 -3 or even 7-4

Shaq 6 - 11 listed at 7 -1

You aren't really that stupid to believe listed height of players?

And about Woolridge, that was my point. He was a very big athletic guy who could score at his team's expense. Just like most players today. One exception, he did shoot around 55% in his prime, better than 99% of players today.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> How about Chicago???
> 
> Had Paxon, Jordan, Hodges and Pippen
> ...


Stupid?

Chicago was 50-32
Milwaukee was 42-40 and a playoff team
Dallas was 53-29
Seattle was 44-38
Portland was 53-29


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Ok, If you want me to be exact I was looking at 88-89.

That's not the point anyway. None of these were top 80s teams in any year and they all had at least 3 good shooters.

You asked, you got it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

golgor, the Lakers would kill Yugoslavia. The beat Vlade and Peja when they were surronded by Webber and Bibby so they would blow them out when they were surronded by Jaric and Radmonavoic. Lakers= world champions.



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Athleticism is required for perimeter defense at least. Back in the 80's if you were a horrible athlete and defender but a great shooter you were in the rotation, that's not the case today. Half a dozen centers that are better than Shaq defensively? We are going to disagree on that one. Clifford Robinson is the only one I can think of.

Nobody told me that teams and coaches didn't watch tape back then. I said coaches barely did and players rarely did. That's a fact. The scouting today is MILES ahead of what it was back then.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Again you go with they WOULD.

Yougoslavia DID, they don't have to speculate.

And who told you Lakers beat Sacramento. You mean David Starn and his 3 goons in Black and White stripes beat Sacramento?

Today if you are a horrible shooter, passer, athlete, as long as you can Tatoo yourself and rap they give you MVP


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> Really. Other than the top 4-5 teams name these teams that had 3 players with solid mid range jumpers.....
> ...


.. :clap:


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> And what the hell are you applauding for?
> 
> I listed more than enough crappy teams with more than 3 good shooters.
> ...



80% of the players in the NBA back then would be in the CBA right now, fundamental players like fred hoiberg, shane battier, eic piatkowski, michael curry, morris peterson, kerry kittles etc..woud be solid starter in the NBA in the 80s, some even stars. 

and what was the average height for a SG back in the 80's? 6'4? graig hodges? jon starks? pffffffffttt... they would be undersized shooting guards today and most likely bench players of playoff teams beause DEFENSE wins championships, not mid range jumers and 'fundamental' shooters


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

its also hilarius how you trash KG becaus young kids today want to be like him, KG is THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PLAYER IN THE NBA, just because they talk ebonics dosent mean they dont know the fundamentals.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Today if you are a horrible shooter, passer, athlete, as long as you can Tatoo yourself and rap they give you MVP


You do know that your token black guy Tim Duncan has won 2 MVPs in the last 4 years right?


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

If Garnett were truly a fundamental player, he would be dominating in the paint and shooting 55%FG like a real 7 footer is supposed to do instead of shooting fade aways, 20 footers and 3 pointers!!!

It's not a good endorsment for the present NBA when the defending 3 time world champions, aside from Shaq and Kobe, have probably the weakest lineup EVER for a championship team.

Horry, Fox and Fisher would be bench players in ANY ERA!!! and yet they're starting for the present "dominant team", PATHETIC.

In the 80's there were 23 teams, low salaries, better drafts and no cap!!! So teams were definetely deeper with quality than they are now.

Today you have a hard cap, sky rocketing salaries, weak drafts and 29 teams!!! 

Do the math bro.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> If Garnett were truly a fundamental player, he would be dominating in the paint and shooting 55%FG like a real 7 footer is supposed to do instead of shooting fade aways, 20 footers and 3 pointers!!!
> 
> It's not a good endorsment for the present NBA when the defending 3 time world champions, aside from Shaq and Kobe, have probably the weakest lineup EVER for a championship team.
> ...



about Garnett.... PLEASE, he does EVERYTHING you could ask for a player and you STILL nitpick? NOBODY inthe 80's was as versatile as Kevin Garnett is right now, pippen is probably the closest but even then he was a 90's era player.

about depth... what you hav failed to realize is that the last 12 championships were won by superstars, and some role players. Deep teams are nice, but deep dosent neccesarily mean chapionships, superstars giive you the best chance at a Ring.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.

In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.
> 
> In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!


i think it has more to do with officiating then anything, the officials back then were 'honest' and called the game right, today they slow the game down and call fouls every other trip down the court, its sad. Superstars get superstar treatment these days more then ever since Jordan. The team with the Superstars will get all the calls and will win the game because the refs are really screwed up these days.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.
> 
> In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!


but now we're seeing depth rise to the top again. lakers are the ONLY team that can pull off not having a good all-round team. they can do so only because they have two of the best...putting them in 8th. your argument here is flawed. you still need multiple stars on successful teams. the lakers roleplayers, as bad as they look nowadays are your fundamental stiffs that would have flourished in the 80s because they can also play good defense.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Wrong again.

In the 80's one on one defense was the norm and player needed to have the ability to create their own shots.

Guess what? neither George, Shaw, Horry, Fox, Fisher or Walker can create their own shot. You put a hand in their face and they become USELESS!!! 

And in the 80's were defenders could hand check, elbow, grab, claw, FLAGRANT FOUL!!! these scrubs would've been even more useless.

None of the Lakers 3-12 stiffs could crack the lineups of ANY 80's champion or finalists!!! Not even the 81' or 86' Rockets.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> Wrong again.
> 
> In the 80's one on one defense was the norm and player needed to have the ability to create their own shots.
> ...


nonetheless, they would have been great players in the 80s even if not on the championship team. they are sad when compared against the players of today.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Of course they would've been great players, in the CBA!!!


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Half a dozen centers that are better than Shaq defensively? We are going to disagree on that one. Clifford Robinson is the only one I can think of.
> 
> Nobody told me that teams and coaches didn't watch tape back then. I said coaches barely did and players rarely did. That's a fact. The scouting today is MILES ahead of what it was back then.



I wasn't too clear on what era I was referring to. In the 80's there was a half a dozen or more centers that were better defenders than Shaq.

I'd like to see what you are basing the scouting comments on. MILES ahead? I'd really like to see that.


----------



## gamadict (Jul 28, 2002)

People need to remember that players take a ton more threes today when comparing straight FG%'s between eras. The 80s were still better in terms of efficiency, but not as much as straight FG%'s show. In 2001, teams took at least double the number of three pointers, and coverted them at a higher rate. 

There's a reason fewer players take midrange jumpers today. Shooting 33% from three gets you as many points as shooting 50% from two. Remember that the three-pointer was only introduced in 1980, the historical trend has been more threes every year, as teams increasingly realize their value, up until about 94, peaking in the mid 90s, now remaining stable at about 1100-1200 3PFGA/team per year as of 2001...


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

One major factor that's been completely overlooked when comparing the two eras is the pace of the game. Scoring is down due to the slower pace of today's game as much as anything else. Less possessions = less shots = less points. Back in the 80's most every team played at the pace of Sacramento or Dallas (and some teams like Denver played far above that). It's tough to quantify exactly how players from two different eras compare - however, it is a fact that there are significantly fewer total possessions in the average game today than in the 80's. Given the success of Sacramento, Dallas, and NJ's 'throwback' pace I feel that the lower scoring of today's games has much more to do with the slower pace favored by most teams than any supposed defensive improvements.

As far as players today being better than the players of the 80's - I'm on the fence. I'd take the mid-late 80's (say, 84-89) over today without question, but the early 80's - I don't know (that was hardly a high-water mark for the league). I think the NBA is on the way back up after the low point of the strike-shortened season where the game was in it's worst shape in 20 years and the future looks relatively promising. However, I'm completely baffled by the assertions that the players and teams are somehow significantly better today (1985 was just 18 years ago; we're not talking about the 60's) - there's absolutely no evidence this is true and the continued success of 'relics' from that era in today's league would indicate that the opposite is true.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> That shows you how weak the league has become, that a team with 1 or 2 stars combined with 10 or 11 role players can win multiple championships, that was unthinkable in the 80's.
> 
> In the 80's you needed multiple stars and DEPHT!!!



do you not realize that the NBA has gone through multiple expansions? Charlotte, Orlando, Toronto and the Grizzlies. That spreads 56! players out to new teams, imagine Tracy Mcgrady and Mike Miller on the Spurs with Duncan, Robinson and Parker! imagine Pao Gasol, Shane Battier, Mike Miller, Jason Williams, Stromile Swift, Lorenzen Wright and Wesley Person on the Boston Celtics!! imagine Baron Davis, Jamal Mashburn and David Wesley on the Lakers!!


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> do you not realize that the NBA has gone through multiple expansions? Charlotte, Orlando, Toronto and the Grizzlies. That spreads 56! players out to new teams, imagine Tracy Mcgrady and Mike Miller on the Spurs with Duncan, Robinson and Parker! imagine Pao Gasol, Shane Battier, Mike Miller, Jason Williams, Stromile Swift, Lorenzen Wright and Wesley Person on the Boston Celtics!! imagine Baron Davis, Jamal Mashburn and David Wesley on the Lakers!!



You just proved his (and everybody else who says the league is diluted) point.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved his (and everybody else who says the league is diluted) point.



no, talent and defense are not neccesarily the same thing, the superstars of the leauge are more spread out but overall defense is still better then back in the 80's.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> no, talent and defense are not neccesarily the same thing, the superstars of the leauge are more spread out but overall defense is still better then back in the 80's.



I'll certainly respect your opinion.


But now I'll ask you to back it up please. And don't just say that players from the 80's would be in the CBA today.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

The difference is that in the 80's teams would play uptempo offense much like the Kings and the Mavs. Coming into the 90's offensive philosophy changed and more emphasis was put on defense. However, it wasn't until the Spurs won in the strike season that teams completely changed their philosophy to dedicate themselves to defense. Anyways, defense wins championships, offense puts fans in the seats...that has always been the philosophy but in today's game defense is much more of an emphasis than offense. Teams clamp down and play a more tight one on one.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

I seem to remember the Lakers putting a team out on the floor at times that had no player smaller than 6'9 and trapping teams to death. Even they got the ball over halfcourt they were working against the clock. Bad shots and turnovers were caused because of it and easy transition buckets when you have the Magic man leading the break.

The Kings and Mavs are a team of chuckers. They don't compare to the elite of the 80's.

They played uptempo because there were real PG's and Centers playing back then Bball Doctor. They COULD run because they had the personell to start the break and run the break. Today we have a whole lot of the middle man (finishers) but no igniters and facillitators.

Defenses have got a little more sophisticated especially with the zone, but in no way is it better than what we had in the 80's. It might actually be worse because players don't come into the league with the fundamentals anymore.

Teams don't run anymore because they aren't as deep as they used to be. It would blow your mind to know some of the teams and their lineups couldn't even get into the playoffs.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> I seem to remember the Lakers putting a team out on the floor at times that had no player smaller than 6'9 and trapping teams to death. Even they got the ball over halfcourt they were working against the clock. Bad shots and turnovers were caused because of it and easy transition buckets when you have the Magic man leading the break.
> 
> The Kings and Mavs are a team of chuckers. They don't compare to the elite of the 80's.
> ...


Buddy I never said that defense today is much better than in the 80's. The Lakers ability to cause turnovers was what makde them champs...read my post...defense wins championships. Teams ran because the offense was more spread and yes I agree that the points were better in the 80's and early 90's than today and that had a huge part for it. My post was simply explaining that the emphasis on defense is higher. I believe like you that teams in general were much better in the 80's because although they did not play as tough defense as teams of today except for the Pistons, Knicks, and Bulls in 80's n early 90's they played an overall better game.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Buddy I never said that defense today is much better than in the 80's. The Lakers ability to cause turnovers was what makde them champs...read my post...defense wins championships. Teams ran because the offense was more spread and yes I agree that the points were better in the 80's and early 90's than today and that had a huge part for it. My post was simply explaining that the emphasis on defense is higher. I believe like you that teams in general were much better in the 80's because although they did not play as tough defense as teams of today except for the Pistons, Knicks, and Bulls in 80's n early 90's they played an overall better game.


thank you voice of reason.

bud,
please don't tell me that you think the mavs and the kings are just teams of chuckers. they are probably the two most exciting teams to watch right now and are two of the only teams that are playing the style that you are (rightly) enamoured with. at the same time, sacramento has really turned up their level of defense in past years and dallas is trying to follow suit (with some results). i know you're not a hater like golgor.

so, are you still not convinced (its a damn hard job) that today's defense is a little stronger on average? that today's players (especially wings) are better defenders on average? if not, please explain how the defense was better and how the defenders were better (naming off a few defenders isn't going to cut it) instead of trying to come up with reasons to explain the astronomically high scoring.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> thank you voice of reason.
> ...


I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post from page 2. I obviously can't convince you with the evidence I have provided, so why don't you try and convince me? And yes, compared to the teams from the 80's the Kings and Mavs are chuckers. The 2 best teams would be a far cry from the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, etc...of the 80's. They may be trying harder, but they still fall far short of those teams in terms of defense.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post from page 2. I obviously can't convince you with the evidence I have provided, so why don't you try and convince me? And yes, compared to the teams from the 80's the Kings and Mavs are chuckers. The 2 best teams would be a far cry from the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, etc...of the 80's. They may be trying harder, but they still fall far short of those teams in terms of defense.


so you're now only comparing the best teams of these eras? what does defense have to do with being "chuckers"? or am i misinterpreting that word.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you did a decent job of arguing why scores may have been higher. i just don't see good defenses allowing over 100 points per game, i'm sorry. perimeter defenders have come a LONG way since the 80s but the center position is probably defensively weaker. however, there are still many good defensive big men in the game. the style of the game has changed- less fast breaks, more halfcourt, a greater dedication to defense.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

Agree to disagree I guess then Skywalker? You and I have blown up a couple of threads arguing now, haven't we?

Catch you on the next one


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

agreed. till next time.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

This is how I'm gonna close this argument.

The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.

What are their averages???

103ppg and allow 93ppg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If this soft as tissue paper team can pull this off, there is no DOUBT that the 80's teams would absolutely OWN the present NBA.

Nuff said.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

I think that we need to take off our Member's Only jackets, unroll our pants, loosen the skinny leather tie and turn off the Duran Duran Greatest Hits CD. The 80's NBA was an amazing time, one that shall probably never be matched. The 80's were exciting, no matter which side of the country you lived on. The NBA had pretty much lost its market, and thankfully Magic and Bird came along to save it. Comparing different eras is fruitless, the 87 Lakers will never face off against the 01 Lakers (well, only in a video game).


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
> 
> The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
> ...


again with your individual comparison. 

this team is reknowned by all to play weak defense and still they allow under 93 ppg. they allow their opponents comparable #s of possessions to 80s clubs, play poor defense compared to the rest of the league and STILL they allow less points than was commonplace in the 80s. i don't like the small sample comparison but if you want it, there you have it.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
> 
> The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
> ...


and you keep on trying to take this argument in different directions, it's about DEFENSE.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

And you just proved my point of how AWFULL the offenses are in the present NBA. In the 80's these cream puffs would be getting lit up for 110 at least!!!

The freakin Bad Boy Pistons, a team was 10 times better defensively, better offensively and a lot more athletic could only hold the league to 99ppg while putting up only 105 in 1989!!!

The Mavs are a WEAKER team than the 80's Nuggets in both offense and defense and they still keep teams down to 93ppg while putting up 103!!!

Oh they are also 43-12 and likely the only team on pace for 60 wins!!! 

That alone tells you he story about the present NBA.

If this weak as! team is the best the present NBA can offer then my friend the modern league isn't even on the level of the 90's, 70's or 60's NBA.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> This is how I'm gonna close this argument.
> 
> The present NBA team with the best record are the Dallas Mavericks, a team with virtually NO INSIDE GAME(Van exel is their best post player), the weakest front line defense I've seen in my years of watching basketball, their perimeter D maybe even Worse. Aside from Michael Finley this team is one of the most unathletic in the last 10 years and they play a fast break game that many times settles for shooting bad 3 pointers.
> ...


van exel isn't the mavs best post up player ....its nowitski hands down ...and has anyone ever wondered if the defenses in the 80s were so much better .....why were the pistons of the late 80s the reason basketball is in its state today , with slow down offenses and pyhsical grinding defenders it would appear to me that the league wouldn't have changed at the end of the decade and throughout the 90s until today for an inferior style of play 

the truth is there is much more of an emphasis on defense today then lets say 1985 andf there have been a lot of reasons for the lowered ppg in addition to the improved defense (iso off., coaches calling plays on virtually every trip , etc.) 

i believe the league today is every bit as talented as yesteryear the league has more teams but also more resources for talent (where were the 7'6 chinamen in 1982?), better coaching, far more advanced scouting and better medical treatments and its deeper 

and while people overly fall over themselves remembering the good ol' days remember they are extinct for a reason the 15 ft. shot is there but the defenders are different, they cover more ground , no one wants their shot smoked by by a 7'1 small forward because they weren't smart enough to know he was coming on a rotation as opposed to the mid 80's when 6'4 small forwards like Adrian dantley ruled avg. 30 a game ...does anyone here honestly think if he was in his prime he would get 30 game like he did in the 80s as a post up player as he did then?

or mark aguirre drop 30 a game or even a kelly tribuka who was a 20+ a game scorer for a decent stretch of time 

i have no doubt that some of the stars in the 80s would be stars now but the undersized unathletic ones who thrived in the 80s(x-mcdaniel ring a bell)

how does bob macadoo get the pt at 6'9 210lbs to play center(and avg.30ppg.) ...today he is a small forward and a thin one at that nowadays he was a good jumpshooter but a glen rice(who entered the nba at 6'8 220) he isn't 

so get back to actual topic of the thread i'll ask it again if the defense in the 80's was so good compared to todays why didn't it survive? why have defensive techniques and style of play change which they didn't do in the previous 20 years before the 80s

the answer is simple like the dinosaurs it became extinct because they just couldn't cut it anymore


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

I' say this again, the Dallas freakin Mavericks are the best team the present NBA has to offer and they would be just an average team by 80's standards.

They can run, shoot and SCORE on anybody in the present NBA and with what:

1. 3 offensive ONLY midgets a PG

2. The weakest front line for a contending team maybe in HISTORY with Bradley, Nowtzky and Lafrentz. All of them are allergic to the paint on BOTH sides of the ball.

3. A 2-guard in Finley that is one of the worst defenders in the league.

4. And finaly role players like Najera, Bell and Griffin who can only score on the fast break or open jumpers.

The 80's Hawks, Cavs, Jazz, Nuggets and Mavs were ALL better than this sorry team and they didn't even get close to sniffing a title.

Face it the league is WATERED DOWN, WHY?

29 teams, high salaries, weak drafts and a HARD CAP!


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> I' say this again, the Dallas freakin Mavericks are the best team the present NBA has to offer and they would be just an average team by 80's standards.
> 
> They can run, shoot and SCORE on anybody in the present NBA and with what:
> ...


not only is this crap, it's crap that has NOTHING to do with this defense argument.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

The argument I put up was fact!!! You want me to put up the lineup of all those teams so you can see how infinetely better they are?

The argument for better defense is basically that athletes are better now because of athletisism and that 80's teams would'nt be effective in today's league because of it.

Well my man I looked at the best team in the present NBA, one of the worst defensive teams I've EVER seen and one of the most unathletic too and how they are toying with the opposition to the tune of 43-12, averaging 103points while allowing 93!!!

My argument is this:

If the league is so "advanced defensively" then why can't they keep this interior offensively challenged and unathletic squad under 102 points???

By the same token, why can't opposing teams score even 94 points against this soft as! bunch?

The answers are simple:

1.They can run, they can shoot and they are very deep compared to the rest of the league!!! The 80s' teams could run, shoot, had deph and more athletisism than these Mavs.

2. The league as a whole SUCKS OFFENSIVELY!!!!

In closing, the present Mavericks prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 80's teams would absolutely WAX the present competition.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

whatever, i'm fairly confident that the mavs would be one of the best teams in the 80s and may have been seen as a solid defensive team compared to the lack thereof in the 80s.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*let me get this straight showtime84 ?*

are you honestly trying to say the avg. teams of the 80s are better or equal to the current dallas mavs?

:rofl: 

lets pick a team at random to prove how silly this is

i know the mavs of the mid-80's the 1984-85 mavs (they had an avg. record of 44-38)

who was on that team that is as good as the current core of Dirk nowitki ,raef lafrentz, Mike finley , steve nash, nick van exel, 

ro blackmon sure he was good but who else a rookie sam perkins i dont think so the immortal brad davis (uh uh) 

dale ellis,? he avg. a mighty 9.3 a game in the run and gun 80's so so probably not

derek harper ?...you must be kidding the often claimed best player never to make an all star team was so far from all-star calibur play they might not even have let him watch the game let alone play in it (9. pts 4 asts ) 

brad davis ....led this team in assists at 7 with 10 points a game 

mark aquirre was good but at 6'6 he couldn't have anywhere near the success he had then in today's nba (picture him posting up dirk or KG and these 2 are just in his own division)

the current mavs would eat this team alive and leave their carcus for vultures 

who amonst this group of supposed modern day world beaters can guard Dirk?...aquirre ? he was one of the worst defenders the 80's had to offer 

sam perkins ? ...highly doubtful and that would leave the aforementioned aquirre guarding ol' raef...the mighty jay vincent perhaps? could have done the job 

who was the center on that team...uwe blab? it wasn't donaldson he came midway next year oh wait it was the mighty sam perkins the 6'9 rookie

just admit this was a silly idea this woas lucky to win as much as it did back then ....and to think you actually reffered to the dallas pgs as midgets when nash is 6'3 and harper is 6'4 and brad davis is only 6'3 himself

if you want to call anything puny try the the old dallas front line6'6 6'8 & 6'9 and not bruiser in the bunch 

and while you are doing that you can answer why if the 80's defense was so great why did they change the way they play defense throughout most of the league ?


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> are you honestly trying to say the avg. teams of the 80s are better or equal to the current dallas mavs?
> 
> :rofl:
> ...



First of all, if you're going to compare teams across eras at least compare the best team of today to the best team of that era. The Celtics and Lakers would kill the current Mavs, Kings, or Lakers squad. You have no argument there. 

Mark Agguire couldn't score against players today? Sorry, but he was doing his thing against bigger and more athletic players back then also. I'm guessing that you and Skywalker were about 5-10 years old in the 80's making the arguments you are making.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually i didn't make up the premise i was answering 

it was showtime 84 who said the current mavs would be an avg. team in the 80's 

so i picked and avg. team in the 80's and compared them to show how off that assertion was 

and if you want to talk across eras who do the lakers have or the celtics have that would have even slowed a shaq 

robert parish ....? come on walton(greg kite anyone?) was there for a year and he was immoble compared to his earlier years a 40 year old kareem his backup mychal thompson 

i saw the lakers and celts of the 80s and the supposed greatest front line in history would have been killed by one man and is almost crazy to say otherwise (rob parish would be giving away like 100 lbs as would mchale) they would have been forced into the same double teaming tactics that team today are 

and i saw how well the celts of that time did against a young MJ and kobe would have obliterated them (kobe doesn't have dave corzine at center unlike jordan so they may have to play him one on one ) 

the lakers are a 2 man team today but neither man would have been stopped by the the great teams of before so just like the good ones of today they would have lost 

and there is a huge difference scoring on thurl bailey and scoring on KG so you'll just have to excuse me if i'm skeptical on aquirre's chances


----------



## lazlo (Feb 18, 2003)

These are my thoughts on this matter.

1. Is today's defense better than that in the 80's? In my opinion, defense is overstimated because of poorer offense.

2. To me one of the keys id that there are basically no centers. If you put yourself in 1986, you had: Moses, Kareem, Akeem, Patrick, Donaldson, Parish, Edwards, Cartwright, Laimbeer, Eaton, J.B. Carrol, Daugherty (well, he entered in 1986, maybe he should not count) ... and I am leaving a whole bunch which would make a team nowadays. This changes the game a great deal. You actually had to play interior defense, beacuse there were guys who knew how to play down low. Shaq would suffer a lot more those days because he would have had to play defense.

3. Somebody mentioned that today's teams are taller and that "midgets" such as Dantley would not make it in today's game. Well, I can recall a few line ups with very tall guys back then.

How about the 86-87 Bucks?

PG Paul Pressy 6'5"
SG Jerry Reynolds 6'8"
SF Terry Cummings 6'9"
PF Jack Sikma 6'11"
C Randy Breuer 7'3"

A guy like Dantley had to play aginst the likes of James Worthy, Bird (or McHale), Robert Reid, Vandeweghe, Dominique Wilkins ... Of course there were shorter guys, but as it happens today. The Knicks have a very small line up on the court many times, just to name one.

Hey, look at the line ups the Lakers or the Celtics had those days. They were big!

4. There are very good players these days. I actually believe the NBA is rising from a critical level of playing. I feel the basketball being displayed this season is the best in the last four or five years (although I don't fancy individual exhibitions for the sake of them).

5. Good defenders in the 80's? Here are a few.

Michael Cooper
Sidney Moncrief
Dennis Rodman (he entered the league in 1986 at age 25).
Dennis Johnson
Kevin McHale
Maurice Cheeks
Joe Dumars
Alvin Robertson
Mark Eaton
T.R. Dunn
Akeem Olajuwon

There were also a lot of more than decent defenders.

6. Just to make my pont that the level of playing was much better then, let me name a guy: Bobby Hansen. Never an all star, not spectacular, but if he were 27 years old today, teams would kill to get him. He could shoot the ball...

7. What players should also be mentioned?

George Gervin
Larry Nance
James Worthy
Kiki Vandeweghe
Alex English
Bernard King
Danny Ainge
Ralph Sampson (from 83-86)
Clyde Drexler
Glenn Rivers
Derek Harper
Otis Thorpe
Reggie Theus
Terry Cummings
Thurl Bailey
Charles Barkley
....
and a whole lot more

Those guys would be priceless today, regardless of the fact that they were good or bad defenders.


Conclusion

Even though players are physically stronger, their defense is overstimated by the fact that offensive capabilities is much poorer and becaase there are almost no decent centers on the game.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

While the Showtime Lakers would've had to worry about a gimpy Shaq and Kobe, the present Lakers would have to worry about:

Kareem
Magic
Worthy
Scott
Cooper
Wilkes
McAdoo
Rambis
Kupchak

Not to mention the greatest fast break attack in HISTORY along with a hellish preassure defense.

This is not even a contest.

Shaq would probably pass out at halfcourt from chasing Showtime around.

Shaq+Kobe=70 while Showtime=120 at least!


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:

C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
PF-Perkins, Tarpley
SF-Aguirre, Shremph
SG-Blackman, Alford
PG-Harper, Davis

I'm sorry dude, but that team would absolute ABUSE the present Mavs, the 1988 Mavs frontline would leave the present puss!es Black and Blue.

Mark Aguirre used to get his points against Scottie Pippen(greatest defender of all time) who the hell on the present Mavs is gonna stop him, Najera? Please, Nowitzky? HELL NO!!!, Bell? LOL!!!

And nobody has to guard Nowitzky, that dude guards himself! A 7 footer shooting fade aways and 20 footer at 48% The 88' Mavs would live happily with that.

That team had 3 all-stars in the starting lineup and 2 horses in Roy Tarpley and Detlef Shremph coming off the bench.

Again, NO CONTEST!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Let's look at the arguments for a weakening of the NBA:

*Expansion* 
The theory is that the NBA expanded by 4 teams (or by 13%) in the last 15 years, thereby watering down talent. 

The problem with this argument is that it disregards that while there were more teams needing talent, there was also a quickly growing pool of talent:

- The US population grew in that same span of time from 230 million people to 280 million people (or by 17%). 

- More kids in the 80's and 90's were learning to play ball than in the 60's or 70's. Stars like Dr. J, Bird, Magic and Jordan drastically enhanced the popularity of the game. Huge salaries emerged in the 80's making it a "dream job". Those kids who watched the game then are potentially in the NBA now.

- It's now a worldwide game instead of an American game. Sabonis is the only non-North American I can remember from the 80's. That has obviously changed. 

Anyone looking at these trends can plainly see that the pool of potential players is greater now then at any time in NBA history. And certainly more than enough to compensate for a 13% growth in demand for NBA players. 

*The Salary Cap* 
The theory is that no team can accumulate enough good talent on their team like the Lakeshow did in the 80's or Celts did in the 60's because they'd go bankrupt. 

The problem with this argument is that it goes both ways. If most of the talent in the NBA was localized in a few teams, doesn't that also mean that the rest of the league had less talent? 

You only have so many great players. If the Lakeshow did a good job of hording great players, that means it didn't have to face as many other great players on a nightly basis. That means it faced more inferior competition than a team like the current Lakers faces.

Sure, the Lakeshow battled with those great Celtics teams, but it faced some really bad Portland and Chicago teams. If the Lakeshow had been run by current rules, that Portland team might've had a lot more talent on it because of the parrity.

So actually, the star teams of the 80's had it easier than teams do now. Now nearly every team fields at least one really good player. 

*Players come out too early and don't learn "fundamentals"* 
The argument is that we have so many kids coming out of high school that they aren't learning how to shoot a midrange jumper or any of the other basics that they would in college. 

Well, I went to college, and after being in the business world for 8 years I can say that most of what I do on a daily basis I learned on the job. Why? Because my particular business has done a far better job of teaching me about my job than college did. 

Why do we expect it's much different in the NBA? IMO, it's pretty rare when on the job training isn't the best kind of training. Who is better at teaching an athlete about what he needs to learn than an NBA trainer who's only job it is to develop one or two young players? 

Are you going to learn better in a college environment where you have scholarships, no salary and many things are free? Not to mention far inferior competition? Or are you going to learn better in an NBA environment where everyone around you is making millions of dollars more than you are? 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. I honestly can't think of a single, irrefutable reason why the NBA now should be less competitive now than it was 15 years ago. Guys are bigger/faster/stronger, there's more money involved so there's more incentive to succeed, and the talent pool is bigger than ever.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.

Then check out the same stats for Kobe, Garnett, T-mac, O'neal,Chandler, Curry and Brown and then tell me if at least 2 years of college doesn't make a difference.

Jumping early only benefits the players but it sure as hell doesn't benefit the NBA. Why do you think David Stern is in favor 20 year old age limit??? He's a smart man and he knows that one of the main reasons for the quality of ball that triggered the Golden Age of the NBA was that EVERYBODY went to college for at least 2 years. He wants to and WILL see that happen again.

In the late 80's, early 90's small market teams like Cleveland, Milwakee and Golden State all had 3 all-stars a piece!!! Do you think with the present HARD CAP those franshises could field that firepower? HELL NO!!! 

There are only 2 teams in the NBA with that kind of talent, Dallas and Sacramento, and their owners are freaking BILLIONARES!!!

The present NBA climate has 30 teams, WEAK DRAFTS, every mediocre player thinks he's worth the max and finally a freakin HARD CAP!!! 

In the 80's there were 23 teams, DEEP DRAFTS, low salaries and a SOFT CAP! EVERY team had at least 2 to 3 all-star caliber players.

It's obvious what league was deeper.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:
> 
> C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
> ...



lets use some realism here 

1 mark aquirre didn't abuse pippen in any sense or form the 1988 year pip was a rookie getting about 16 min . a game by the time he met the pippen that was on a track to greatness(2 years later when aquirre was a piston) in becoming, he locked the mr aquirre down prompting Daly to go with Rodman most of the time against the bulls as at the grand ol' age of 31 his game was already becoming outdated

schrempf shot 15% from 3 pt range and avg 8 pts a game there was a reason he was traded he was underachieving he he was a horse they would have shot him and sold him for glue

perkins and donaldson were nothing to write home about, brad davis was over the hill and alford was a washout in the nba

did you actually mention "trampoline hands" bill wennington as a player in the mavs circa 1988 ...he played 125 minutes the whole season pardon me if i dont think much of his contribution to the team 

what about the immortal Uwe blab? he played 658 minutes that year and avg more points than incrediblill wennington (2.2 to 2.1)

tarpley could play but we all know his career turned out 
blackkmon had game and harper could play but not quite at the level people saying he should be an all-star yet, aguirre was starting to fade(which is why he was traded in the middle of the next year and following that next year would never avg. above 14 points agame again ) 

and to set the record straight you said nothing about which year you said the current mavs would be an avg team if they played in the 80's so i picked an avg. team in the 80's the 44-38 1984-85 mavs and compared them to prove apoint the mavs you chose won 53 and made it to the wcf so i'm thinking you may not know what you are talking about and maybe want to stop being so nostalgic about the good ol' days because your perception is blurred because this team fell right back into mediocrity with 38 wins the next year

and yes the current mavs would still beat these mavs and contrary to what you believe the modern day squad would win (probably pretty easily)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*and what does the salary cap have to do with how well players play?*

they got paid a pittance compared to what they get now so it cant be the amount 

and if the argument is better players it doesn't matter where they go as long as they play in the nba (the discussion is leaguewide not just a few teams as some want to make it even though its really suppose to be about defense ) 

who cares that keon couldn't play for raptors he plays for the kings the league talent level doesn't go down ...if he went to the itallian league it would be another story


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> I' say this again, the Dallas freakin Mavericks are the best team the present NBA has to offer and they would be just an average team by 80's standards.
> 
> They can run, shoot and SCORE on anybody in the present NBA and with what:
> ...






the heart and soul of the Dallas Mavericks is a 7 foot freak of nature named Dirk Nowitski. Dirk would literally DOMINATE the 80's with their 6'5 small forwards. THAT is why the Mavericks would be a top team in the 80's. superstar freaks of nature rule the league like no other era before, and that is a fact.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.
> 
> Then check out the same stats for Kobe, Garnett, T-mac, O'neal,Chandler, Curry and Brown and then tell me if at least 2 years of college doesn't make a difference.
> ...


you act as if kwame brown tyson chandler and eddy curry push jerry west out the game in his prime 

do you know who gets pushed out ?

the 39 yr/old center with bad knees who is the 15 th man on the roster, if the player being sent away is a quality player he latches on to another team and a strong team gets stronger (because the weaker teams are the ones who generally get the teenagers) its a bad argument i've heard it for years and its wrong 

who got the door never to return when the bulls got their 2 teenagers ? michael ruffin & david wood bad teams aren't going to get rid of their few quality players for players they know aren't ready to play and the trade they made to get them more time helped build up the pacers (brad miller ron artest & ron mercer) to the level they are currently at 

the league didn't go down at all for coming of chandler and curry it became more compelling as they are allready better than ruffin and wood and the pacers are pretty tough nowadays


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Go check out the first and second year stats of guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Isiah, Kareem, Dr.J etc.. all of whom went at least 2 years to college.


The people you listed all started at around the age of 22. Go check out the stats of Bryant, McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal, Shawn Kemp, Amare or Garnett at the age of 22. Not much different. 

The high schoolers bring just as much to the game as the college guys by the age of 22. They just get paid for their training instead of doing it for free. 

That's the real problem with all of the people arguing that the NBA is in decline. They like to cite individual players and individual teams as anecdotal evidence of the decline. It just doesn't hold up, because you are trying to compare people playing in different eras, and it's essentially pure speculation. 

I've listed some extremely good reasons why the NBA has fiercer competition than ever before. I'd like to see somebody refute my arguments with something other than anecdotes and speculation.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Yep a 7foot freak that CANNOT play defense, mediocre passer, no power post up game and shoots 46%FG!!! Yeah 80's teams would be shaking at the tought of facing this bulldozers, LOL!

Do you realize that a 36 year old Larry Bird with a shot back put up better numbers than Irk across the board in 1992 ??? Larry Bird was a REAL FREAK!

Also remember, Karl Malone at 6'8, 40 years old, against the supposed "big man, athletic, freakish" heavy west is still putting up 21ppg, 8rebs, 4assts, 2stls on 46%FG!!!

What this man would do to the present suck filled NBA if he was in his prime would be CRIMINMAL! That goes for the entire 80's as well.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I've listed some extremely good reasons why the NBA has fiercer competition than ever before. I'd like to see somebody refute my arguments with something other than anecdotes and speculation.


it will never happen because what you said was true


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

You just proved my point Wanker.

Those guys came into the league at 20, 21 and 22 ready to kick as! and take names while ENHANCING the quality of the NBA because they,re already seasoned in what competitive basketball is all about.

The young high school punks come into the league at 17 and 18 with NO IDEA how to play the damn game and in those 3, 4 or 5 years they take to develope into decent players they DRAG DOWN the quality of the league NBA.

Can somebody tell me what the hell Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry are doing for the NBA? NOTHING!!! only contributing to it's downfall.

Don't worry, David Stern feels the same way I do and you will see a 20 year old age limit come through in the next CBA. Stern OWNS the players union and he will get his way again


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> I'm talking about the 1988 WCF Mavs:
> 
> C-Donaldson, Bill Wennington
> ...


This is easily arguable. First off, as great Aguirre was when he faced Pippen as a Mav, Pip was still a young player and 88' was only his second season. Let's look at that lineup versus today's Mavs.

88' (As you listed) and their stats

C Donaldson (53 G, 10.8 rpg, 9.1 ppg)

PF Tarpley (Tarpley was limited to 19 games in 88-89 so I will use 87-88, 81 G, 11.8 rpg, 13.5 ppg)

SF Aguirre (77 G, 5.6 rpg, 3.6 apg, 25.1 ppg)

SG Blackman (70 G, 3.5 rpg, 3.7 apg, 19.7 ppg)

PG Derek Harper (81 G, 7.0 apg, 17.3 ppg) 

Bench:

Schrempf (37 G, 4.5 rpg, 2.3 apg, 9.5 ppg)
Perkins (78 G, 8.8 rpg, 15 ppg)

03' and their stats

C Bradley (55 G, 6.7 rpg, 2.6 bpg, 7 ppg)

PF Dirk (54 G, 9.9 rpg, 23.6 ppg)

SF Griffin (50 G, 3.3 rpg, 4.1 ppg)

SG Finley (56 G, 5 rpg, 3.8 apg, 20.2 ppg)

PG Nash (56 G, 7.0 apg, 17.9 ppg)

Bench:

Lafrentz (42 G, 5.2 rpg, 9 ppg)
Van Exel (47 G, 4.2 apg, 11.7 ppg)
Najera (23 G, 4.5 rpg, 7.3 ppg) 

Matchup:

Donaldson vs. Bradley

Donaldson was a monster but he was in his decline when 88' came. His offensive numbers dropped but he still had the presence to command for rebounds. Bradley would struggle to grab rebounds against Donaldson even with his height but Bradley would easily stuff any shots put up by Donaldson.

Tie.

Tarpley vs. Dirk

Two completely different players. Tarpley will be forced to the outside because of Dirk's shooting ability. Most post players are not used to this so Tarpley will eventually forget his man and Dirk will jack threes all night. Tarpley cannot guard Dirk, fact is that Dirk is one of the unguardable players today. However, with that said Tarpley should own the boards against Dirk and Dirk doesn;t have the strength to hold off Tarpley in the post but Tarpley doesn't have a strong offensive game anyways. It is extremely raw especially in 88'. In the end Dirk will dominate against Tarpley on the offensive end and might make Roy foul out. 

Dirk.

Aguirre vs. Griffin

Griffin's role on the Mavs is to be stopper. He won't stop Aguirre. Aguirre will get his points but the presence of Bradley will prevent Aguirre from going into the lane which I felt was one of his strengths. 

Aguirre.

Blackman vs. Finley

Finley is a more rounded and better player than Blackman. Not to mentioned more athletic and much much stronger. In the end, Finley will pose to much problems for Blackman on the defensive end that his offensive will suffer. 

Finley.

Harper vs. Nash

This will be a great matchup. I alway felt that Harper was an outstanding and gritty defender. But, Nash has the speed to counter Harper's gritty offense. This will be a fun matchup as Harper will probably come out on top but having to guard both Nash and Van Exel will drain him.

Tie but eventually the combo of Nash/Van Exel will beat them.

Bench:

The Mavs bench is deep with stars like Raef and Nick who would be starters on other teams. Najera is a hard worker and Walt is always an offensive threat. Avery Johnson has great IQ and Bell is a solid defender. The bench todya is much deeper than the Mavs of the past. Schrempf was great but far from his sixth man days. He was solid and Perkins was an offensive force. Although he was not reallly a bench player since he took Tarpley's place and shared playing time at center with an aged Donaldson. Raef and Perkins whould have been a good matchup. Perkins might be the only bench player than could contend against Van Exel, Raef, and Najera. Alford and Davis were less than impressive. 

Overall the depth of the Mavs today is much better than yesterday. The result is that the Mavs of 2003 would win at least 8 out of 10 against the 88' Mavs. But the 88' Mavs would be a playoff contender easily in today's game. The best team...no way. The Celtics and Lakers of the 80's would easily be the best if they played today.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Let's ask a different (but related) question: name for me a team sport that's actually seen an INCREASE in scoring over a 30 year span. I doubt you can. 

Whether you are talking baseball or basketball, the natural evolution is to have some all-star studs in the earlier years of the sport and some really, really terrible players placed with them. The all-stars completely abuse other teams' terrible players, resulting in Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain-like dominance. You get hundred point games and RBI records. 

As a league matures, it grows in popularity and the pool of talent grows with it. There may not be a lot more all-star studs, but there are far more pretty darned good players attracted to the game. Teams can play better defense because they no longer have to field really aweful players. All star studs no longer can completely abuse the really bad players, and scoring predictably falls. 

The only major MLB record that's been fought over in the past few years has been home runs. Why? Because it's a one-on-one statistic. (A really great hitter only has to beat one other guy, the pitcher, and pitching has always been a specialty position where no team could afford weakness.) 

Watch an NBA Classic game on NBA tv from the 70's. Notice how many half-court passes they throw? People haven't forgotten to throw them now, they just know that some 6-11 small forward with superhuman speed is going to intercept it. 

Nobody realizes how good defense has become from 1-12 because there are precious few statistics to document it.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Let's ask a different (but related) question: name for me a team sport that's actually seen an INCREASE in scoring over a 30 year span. I doubt you can.
> 
> Whether you are talking baseball or basketball, the natural evolution is to have some all-star studs in the earlier years of the sport and some really, really terrible players placed with them. The all-stars completely abuse other teams' terrible players, resulting in Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain-like dominance. You get hundred point games and RBI records.
> ...


Baseball but is all steroids.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Uh huh, is so true that NBC gave up the league in favor of Arena football and bull riding! There are half LESS network television games than last year, the all-star game had to be put on cable for the first time EVER, ratings, image and popularity overall continue to drop, the Finals are breaking RECORDS for low ratings, kids prefer to wear retro Alex English and Jamaal Wilkes jersey's instead of the present "stars" and by this time next year freakin NASCAR will take the NBA's place as the fourth most popular league.

Those my friends are the FACTS!!! In the late 80's early 90's the NBA was the HOTTEST league around, NCAA basketball was on par with College Football and superstars like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan were thranscendant stars.

I mean if what you guys say is true, the NBA would be in the midst of new Golden Age.

Guess what? It's NOT.

Refute that bro's.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Those guys came into the league at 20, 21 and 22 ready to kick as! and take names while ENHANCING the quality of the NBA because they,re already seasoned in what competitive basketball is all about.


Actually, I will concede the one point that younger players in certain instances (i.e., when they're forced to play 40 mpg) drag down the quality of play on certain teams temporarily. They drag down the quality of play in the NBA until they get up to speed. (I don't think Minnesota regrets nabbing KG though, nor LA in getting Bryant.)

However, in other instances, like with Jermaine O'Neal, nothing was lost. Portland did the smart thing by bringing him along in practice. Portland probably did a better job of preparing him for life in the NBA than anything Jerm could've had in college. And Portland fielded exciting, competitive teams the entire time. 

Or how about the Lakers? Would they have been better off with Kobe not dropping 20 points a game in '98. 

Regardless, though, I hardly think the influx of high schoolers outweighs all the arguments I've made for the NBA being more competitive than ever. I'd still like to see somebody refute my numerous points.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> In the late 80's early 90's the NBA was the HOTTEST league around, NCAA basketball was on par with College Football and superstars like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan were thranscendant stars.
> 
> I mean if what you guys say is true, the NBA would be in the midst of new Golden Age.
> ...


I would think you were sophisticated enough to understand the difference between competition and marketing. 

The NBA as it stands now is in a huge marketing slump. The fact is that all the defense is not nearly as fun to watch as the more free flowing game of the 80's. Nobody in the current NBA has that personability that Magic, Bird and Jordan had. And there are far more media choices, with the Internet, play stations, DVD's, and competing sports. 

I actually enjoyed 80's baskeball much more than the current version. But I don't mistake it to be superior basketball.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> Yep a 7foot freak that CANNOT play defense, mediocre passer, no power post up game and shoots 46%FG!!! Yeah 80's teams would be shaking at the tought of facing this bulldozers, LOL!
> 
> Do you realize that a 36 year old Larry Bird with a shot back put up better numbers than Irk across the board in 1992 ??? Larry Bird was a REAL FREAK!
> ...


who in the 80's could really stop dirk norwitski? really, i mean... he's basically unstoppable NOW, who could stop him back then? Dennis Rodman is one guy who would give Dirk fits but even then he wouldnt be able to alter his shots because at 7 feet, Dirk can get his shot off of anyone, and if you put a center at him, he'd just dribble around him. Dirk would really dominate the 80's.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I would think you were sophisticated enough to understand the difference between competition and marketing.
> ...


So True.
The Detroit Pistons today are one of the Best teams in the league, but not many would pay to see them. Who does? besides Piston fans? Does that mean that the Pistons arent a good team? no. Just that their style of hard-nosed DEFENSE isnt very fun to watch. How about the '99 Knicks and Heat? same thing... slow, half-court teams who grind it out all all game with hard-nosed DEFENSE and half-court offense. Not very fun teams to watch... does that mean their Quality of play is any less then a team that is FUN TO WATCH? no. 

'FUN to Watch' and Quality basketball are not the same thing.

The last 11 NBA championships were won by teams with 'Dominant Superstars'. Most Notably Michael Jordan and Shaquille Oneal. *The rest of the league realized that they werent going to win a championship unless they found a way to stop these Dominating Superstars.* for example... The Blazers traded a young up and coming star for a veteran in Dale Davis to help them stop Shaquille Oneal in their quest for a title. The Sacramento Kings traded for Doug Cristie and his ugly jumpshot so he could stop the leagues top shooting guards from totally dominating in games. most notably Kobe Bryant. 

Teams realized that the Pat Reiley Knicks and the Detroit Pistons were the teams who gave the Perrenial Champion Chicago Bulls the most trouble,, especially in the playoffs. These teams decided that if they wanted to get through the Bulls, they had to improve defensively. The shift in Fast-paced basketball to defensive half-court teams really started during the middle of the Bulls Dynasty, teams adjusted to what Jordan was giving them, and now they're adjusting to what Shaq is giving them. Defense wins Championships and its sooo true. 

so i agree with you that *Fun Basketball* isnt neccesarily *Better Basketball*. Fun basketball gets the Ratings, its not Rocket science.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> The greatest, dirtiest, roughest and most intimidating defensive team of all time came from that era in the Bad Boy Pistons and the lowest ppg they EVER allowed was 99!!! back in 1989 so that tells you a lot about how powerfull the offenses were.
> 
> Hell the 91 Bulls had AWESOME defense and they allowed 101ppg!!!
> ...


DEFENSE IS NOT DEFINED BY PPG!


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

I'm sorry bro, but the 1999 Knicks have to be one the WORST teams that has made it to the Finals in the history of the NBA.

It's not about defense or offense, that team BLEW!!!

I think any team that fails to score at LEAST 97ppg should be fined 1 million dollars and taken away a first round pick !!!

I bet the house that EVERYBODY would start playing like the Mavs if that were to happen.

NOBODY wants to watch Knicks/Heat, slow it down, low scoring, bad shooting, no flowing, foul fest games that end in 82-75 scores. NOBODY!!!


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> I'm sorry bro, but the 1999 Knicks have to be one the WORST teams that has made it to the Finals in the history of the NBA.
> 
> It's not about defense or offense, that team BLEW!!!
> ...


Like i said, Fun dosent neccasarily mean BETTER basketball. The Detroit Pistons of Today are Worst Offensively then the '99 Knicks, does that mean Detroit is a Worst team? no. Its not all about the sexy Showtime Basketball, scoring more points isnt everything.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

No it's not everything but the truly great teams can combine BOTH, 80's Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, Pistons, Lakers along with the 90's Bulls did it.

It's ok to play great defense as long as you don't neglect the offensive side of the ball like the majority of the league today does.

Talking about the lack of popularity of the present NBA you also have to look at the slow death of NCAA basketball, who had it's golden age at the same time the NBA did (1979-1993).

David Stern knows the pivotal role the NCAA plays on the popularity of the NBA and that's why he will put in the 20 year old age limit in the coming future. Thank God!


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> No it's not everything but the truly great teams can combine BOTH, 80's Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, Pistons, Lakers along with the 90's Bulls did it.
> 
> It's ok to play great defense as long as you don't neglect the offensive side of the ball like the majority of the league today does.
> ...


at this point you're basically admitting that the league concentrates more on defense. this combined with the added length and athleticism has to result in at least marginally better defense, on average, throughout the league. we're not talking about the defense of the best teams in the league or the best defensive team. the argument is about overall defense.

on a side note, the influx of foreign players is really going to help the NCAA hold onto its players for a longer period.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I could debate with you all day. But I just want to point out there is NO CHANCE IN HE!! the current Lakers could beat the 80's Lakers. NO CHANCE.

You say that there is no answer for Shaq or Kobe? I say there is no anwer for Magic or Worthy. The 80's team is FAR more deeper than this current team. Even the 2000 or 2001 Lakers.

Magic would find a way to beat these guys.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i'm not going to pretend to know that today's lakers would win. however, the lakers have proved their mettle, and are continuing to do so, against teams of vastly superior depth- namely the kings and the blazers.

kobe would find a way to beat those guys :grinning:


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

The Lakers of the 80's not only had deph, they had 3 hall of famers leading the charge and an excelent head coach. Things neither the Blazers or Kings have and they took the present squad to the brink.

For the present Lakers to even be competitve they need to have both Kobe and Shaq scoring between 25 and 40 points, that's not the mark of a great team.

For Showtime to be succesfull theyonly needed Magic and Kareem to score in the low 20's.

That was a great team!


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm not going to pretend to know that today's lakers would win. however, the lakers have proved their mettle, and are continuing to do so, against teams of vastly superior depth- namely the kings and the blazers.
> ...


But Kings and Blazers didn't have 3 HOFers 80s Lakers had.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm not going to pretend to know that today's lakers would win. however, the lakers have proved their mettle, and are continuing to do so, against teams of vastly superior depth- namely the kings and the blazers.
> ...



Please tell me you don't actually believe that. PLEASE.

You lose some stripes if that's the case. The Kings and Blazers have nothing on the 80's Lakers. NOTHING.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: let me get this straight showtime84 ?*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the kobe thing was kind of a joke but at the same time countering the "magic will always find a way to win argument." you don't want to be betting against kobe either. 

as for the lakers and the blazers i was just making a point that the lakers have came out victorious against two of the deepest teams that i have ever seen. its just a counterargument against the old champ lakers were too deep for the new champ lakers to win. if magic's lakers would come out on top, i'm betting its largely due to their big 3, not just because they're too deep for shaq's lakers to handle.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

You didn't counter anything. The '89 Lakers had 3 players that averaged 20 points a game. 5 that averaged in double digits. 2 more that averaged 9 points a game and would have started on many teams (Mychal Thompson and Orlando Woolridge) and their 8th leading scorer was Michael Cooper.

Now that's depth.

The current Lakers have Shaq and Kobe and a whole lot of players that are there only because of Shaq. When he was out they were HORRIBLE. Not just regular horrible, but incredibly horrible.

That Laker team would throw a trap at the current Lakers where there would be no player smaller than 6'9 and just bury them. Cooper would do to Kobe what Kirilenko, Artest, and Patterson do to him now, bother him just enough to make him less effective. 

Those Lakers wouldn't give up 15 point leads in a game 7. Or blow FT after FT in game 7.

He!! the series wouldn't even see game 7.

I love Kobe as much as the next Laker fan, but he is nowhere near Magics level. Very few players to ever play the game were.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> You didn't counter anything. The '89 Lakers had 3 players that averaged 20 points a game. 5 that averaged in double digits. 2 more that averaged 9 points a game and would have started on many teams (Mychal Thompson and Orlando Woolridge) and their 8th leading scorer was Michael Cooper.
> 
> Now that's depth.
> ...


you act as if kobe couldn't slow down magic as well 

and i dont see the 80s laker vaunted depth beating the current lakers ...kurt rambis isn't going to lead a charge to win or lose a game 

throughtout the 80s great centers killed abdul-jabbar in the playoffs ...moses malone , sampson ...even parish on occasion what makes you think for even a moment kareem can even slow down shaq ?

and yes the 89 lakers had 3 20 point scorers but a team with no 20 point scorers won the title that year(pistons) so i'm at a loss at how that proves anything


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would have nothing to do with Magic and Byron Scott missing almost the entire series with injuries, would it?

Ignorance abound in this thread. If you didn't watch the league in the 80's, please stop posting. You make yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very true. Injuries destroyed their chances of beating the Pistons. But the Pistons had an aura around them in 89'. Even though it is largely arguable that the Lakers would and should have won with a healthy Magic and Scott something made me feel like the Pistons were unbeatable in 89. I dunno why but that 89 n 90 Pistons team was my favorite then even when compared to my alltime favorite 80's Lakers.


----------



## colossus735 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> The greatest, dirtiest, roughest and most intimidating defensive team of all time came from that era in the Bad Boy Pistons and the lowest ppg they EVER allowed was 99!!! back in 1989 so that tells you a lot about how powerfull the offenses were.
> 
> Hell the 91 Bulls had AWESOME defense and they allowed 101ppg!!!
> ...


MJ even said it himself. The Pistons were the toughest defense he has ever faced. He learned his toughness from them. The Pistons were the only team to knock him down, play tough D, and not sit around or move when Jordan drove to the basket. That has always been the downfall of every team that has lost to the Bulls. They play him too soft and are most times aww struck because they are facing MJ. (The same goes for Kobe today.) He credited Dumars as the best defender he ever faced. Again, part of the Bad Boy team. We may never see a tougher defensive unit like that Piston team ever again.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Remember, there was no choice for the rest of the teams but to play soft because David Stern and NBC basically nuttered the NBA with the flagrant foul rule. Jordan could waltz to the basket after that.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>colossus735</b>!
> 
> 
> MJ even said it himself. The Pistons were the toughest defense he has ever faced. He learned his toughness from them. The Pistons were the only team to knock him down, play tough D, and not sit around or move when Jordan drove to the basket. That has always been the downfall of every team that has lost to the Bulls. They play him too soft and are most times aww struck because they are facing MJ. (The same goes for Kobe today.) He credited Dumars as the best defender he ever faced. Again, part of the Bad Boy team. We may never see a tougher defensive unit like that Piston team ever again.


I think u hit it on dot. Defenses today are much more complicated and designed to force bad shots and bad percentages. The late 80's Pistons and best defensive teams of the past had defenses designed to intimidate. So even though they still allowed a number of points (but still ranked in the top during their day at ppg allowed), they made opposing teams scared to play offense against them. The last team to do that were the 93-94 Knicks and David Stern has put a stop to that rough play and defenses ever since have lost the intimidation but have improved, yes improved, structurally.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so what if the lakers were hurt they weren't favored to win the series anyway (they barely beat the pistons the year before with thomas on a gimpy ankle)

i'm not the one who doesn't remember how it used to be ...i think you should try to grow up


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Well if you feel that the players today are superior to the players in the 80s (I do) you could argue that the present day Lakers would be a deep team in the 80s.

Kurt Rambis was a factor in the Lakers rotation, his 90s more athletic equivalent, Mark Madsen, is a 12th man on the "no depth" Lakers.

As for the centers being better in the 80s, 90% of those guys would be power forwards today. Guys like Chandler, Antonio and Dale Davis and Marcus Camby are considered undersized centers but they were normal sizes for centers in the 80s. 

Hell a lot of small fowards today are the same size as the beanpole 80 centers. 

As for the current Lakers vs the 80s Lakers, nobody on that team has a prayer of stopping Shaq. All of them are too weak or too small.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Well if you feel that the players today are superior to the players in the 80s (I do) you could argue that the present day Lakers would be a deep team in the 80s.
> 
> Kurt Rambis was a factor in the Lakers rotation, his 90s more athletic equivalent, Mark Madsen, is a 12th man on the "no depth" Lakers.
> ...


and who could stop kobe?


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> and who could stop kobe?


Stop? Nobody. Bother the he!! out of? Cooper. Green.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Well if you feel that the players today are superior to the players in the 80s (I do) you could argue that the present day Lakers would be a deep team in the 80s.
> 
> Kurt Rambis was a factor in the Lakers rotation, his 90s more athletic equivalent, Mark Madsen, is a 12th man on the "no depth" Lakers.


Like I said before, if you didn't watch the game in the 80's why are you posting?

A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson, and James Worthy dominated the PF spot in the latter half of the 80's. Rambis started I think one year. He was a heck of a rebounder and defender. Unlike the foul a minute Madsen. The guy is out of control most of the time.

Are you telling me that a trapping lineup of 

PG Cooper
SG Magic
SF A.C. Green
PF James Worthy
C Mychal Thompson

wouldn't trap the current Lakers into oblivion? They have a hard time crossing halfcourt against the Warriors. Kobe ends up playing the point and there is no way he can sustain that level of energy for 48 minutes.

80's Lakers had depth, the current Lakers have none. I can't believe a fellow Laker fan can't see that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*buduan,*

if you really watched the lakers in the 80's you would have known worthy was a small forward 

power wasn't really his thing, he relied mostly on a dymamite 1st step and quickness more often then not ...the guy never avg. more than 6 boards a game 

and ac green & rambis did not dominate the power forward spot ...not even close and despite what you like to think i did watch basketball in the 80s


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> if you really watched the lakers in the 80's you would have known worthy was a small forward
> 
> power wasn't really his thing, he relied mostly on a dymamite 1st step and quickness more often then not ...the guy never avg. more than 6 boards a game
> ...



If you watched like you claim you would know that Worthy played the PF position quite a bit. Especially with that trapping unit I posted. They had Green as the SF with that lineup.

Don't you remember Worthy guarding McHale in all those Finals? Isn't McHale a PF? One of the greatest if I remember correctly.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

The Laker team today cannot beat a Laker team in the mid to early 80s with a still good Jabbar. Take the 99-00 Laker team when they won 67-15. That was the deepest Laker team out of their 3 championships. 

C Shaq (29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg) MVP
PF Green (5 ppg, 5.9 rpg)
SF Rice (15.9 ppg, 4.1 rpg)
SG Kobe (22.5 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 4.9 apg)
PG Harper (7 ppg, 3.4 apg)
* Fisher 
* Horry
* Fox
* Lue
* Shaw
* Salley
* George

Compare that to 86-87 arguably the greatest and deepest Laker team in the 80s.

C Kareem (17.5 ppg, 6.7 rpg)
PF Green (10.8 ppg, 7.8 rpg)
SF Worthy (19.4 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 2.8 apg)
SG Scott (17 ppg, 3.4 apg)
PG Magic (23.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 12.2 apg)
* Thompson (11.4 ppg)
* Cooper (10.5 ppg)
* Rambis (5.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg)
* Billy Thompson
* Branch
* Matthews
* Brickowski

The depth of the 86-87 Lakers would be too much for the 99-00 Lakers.

The Lakers today even with a dominant Kobe would lose against any Laker's team in the 80s (early to mid) 8 times out of 10 simply because of the Laker's incredible depth. Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Scott, Wilkes (early 80s), and Nixon (early 80's) were all good for 20 ppg. I have never witnessed a more balance team than the Lakers in the 80s. Celtics come second...their starting lineup was incredible. The best chemistry team I have ever seen were the 72-10 Bulls and the 69-13 Bulls. Of course I never saw Russell's Celtics...that could actually be the best team of alltime.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes this is TRUE. Worthy was a 3 and a 4. He had the ability to play 4. That is why Jordan compared Kwame to Worthy when he drafted him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


they also had scott guarding point guards most of the time

did that make him a point guard?

magic almost never guarded opposing point guards yet he is considered one of the best all time at that position 

if the best you can do is one match-up when the majority of the time it didn't happen like that, you just lost this argument


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> they also had scott guarding point guards most of the time
> ...


Worthy did play the 4 at times and started at 4 at times too if I remember. That is what I think he meant and I agree. Worthy had the size and ability to play 4 that is what I think he was pointing out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*also the majority of the time*

on the celtics side of things 

mchale guarded small forwards and bird guarded power forwards when they were on the floor together 

did this make bird a power forward and mchale a small forward?

other examples 

when the lakers faced the bulls(starting in their finals meeting) pippen usually guarded magic and MJ stayed on worthy 

by your logic buduan, with worthy being a power forward and air jordan guarding him, it now makes michael jordan a 4 

ive seen dennis rodman guard shaq , and shaq guard rodman so by your logic either rodman is a center(which makes luc longley a forward) or shaq is a forward 

matchups are one thing but when you use your eyes its another 

ac green was the power forward he did the dirty work of setting picks and grabbing the rebounds 

worthy stayed out on the perimeter (although he did post up here and there throughout a game)

and though worthy and green were about the same size it was obvious that both had very different roles on the team and because they were about the same size it allowed for flexibilty in certain matchups but worthy was the small forward


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Worthy did play the 4 at times and started at 4 at times too if I remember. That is what I think he meant and I agree. Worthy had the size and ability to play 4 that is what I think he was pointing out.


bird started at the 4 for most of his career but i think most people agree he was a small forward


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> bird started at the 4 for most of his career but i think most people agree he was a small forward


Point is that Worthy played 4 at times. I don't think he meant that Worthy was a 4. Worthy was often used as a 4 during trap and defensive purposes situations he was right...I saw it countless times. I don't think anybody meant that Worthy was officially a 4. Same thing as is Ben Wallace really a 5 and Duncan is a true 5 not a 4.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Point is that Worthy played 4 at times. I don't think he meant that Worthy was a 4. Worthy was often used as a 4 during trap and defensive purposes situations he was right...I saw it countless times. I don't think anybody meant that Worthy was officially a 4. Same thing as is Ben Wallace really a 5 and Duncan is a true 5 not a 4.


bballdoctor i get what you are saying but what buduan said to start all this is totally different 

A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson, and James Worthy dominated the PF spot in the latter half of the 80's. Rambis started I think one year. He was a heck of a rebounder and defender. Unlike the foul a minute Madsen. The guy is out of control most of the time.-buduan

there was nothing about being a part timer(and spending most of the time in another positionit was about how the line-up with worthy at the 4 dominated )) and the statement was incredibly untrue 

the bulls had a great trap in the early 90s in which horace grant played a guard role by his duties in the trap in the backcourt 

that didn't make grant a guard because in the halfcourt game just like worthy he went back to his normal role 

and though worthy and green were about the same size it was obvious that both had very different roles on the team and because they were about the same size it allowed for flexibilty in certain matchups but worthy was the small forward-this is me earlier 

i acknowledged that on occasion they switched up ..but you are what you are, ac green wasn't about to be trying to take players off the dribble while worthy played on the weakside trying to garner rebounds off misses and thats why worthy is a 3 and green is a 4 ...its because of their offensive purpose on the floor and that never changed not while they were trapping not while they were playing the clippers or celtics or whomever


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> bballdoctor i get what you are saying but what buduan said to start all this is totally different
> ...


Ok I see. 

A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson, and James Worthy dominated the PF spot in the latter half of the 80's< This is wrong.

Barkley, Malone, and McHale were the most dominating 4s in the latter half of the 80s.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

I think he meant they dominated the PF spot for the Lakers, Not the entire league.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

i think we can all agree by this point that the 80s had some great defensive teams but overall, today's defense is better:yes:


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok I see.
> ...



I meant they dominated the PF position on the Lakers. He was trying to say that Rambis was their 4. Not true. Once Green joined the team Rambis rarely played. Rambis played a whopping 800+ minutes in 1988 and wasn't even on the team in 1989.

So yes, Green, Worthy, and Thompson played the position primarily. Green was considered the best defending big man. He covered alot of the quicker SF's so that Worthy and Magic weren't run down covering guys like Nique. Worthy played the 4 more often than you would like to admit happygrinch.

Since you claim you watched the Lakers in the 80's, who guarded McHale the majority of the time in those classic series?

The answer is Worthy and Thompson. Who did McHale guard? Worthy.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SkywalkerAC</b>!
> i think we can all agree by this point that the 80s had some great defensive teams but overall, today's defense is better:yes:



Let's just say we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: buduan,*



> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


mchale guarded worthy for the same reason that green was often put on the other team's best frontcourt scorer , to save bird's energy 

but i'm almost positive the only time in the late 80's worthy switched off the human highlight film was in the all-star game that would have meant guarding kevin willis not exactly a walk in the park for a player pyhsically 

and skywalker what you last said is what i've felt all along but conversations often sway from topics


----------



## grelsner96 (Dec 27, 2012)

golgor said:


> That's exactly my point. That Malone and Stockton were two of the top at their positions by the time they beat LA in the late 90s.
> 
> They were never close to being top anything in the 80s in their prime. When competition disappeared and posers like Kobe and Shaq appeared they became top even though they were already 35 years old and not as good as in the 80s
> 
> ...


The messed up thing about this post is that kobe was a bench player for most of this time. Definitely his second year when jazz went 4-0 and the next year i think he may have started some games. Either way, he was still very young and not even close to his peak. So if you say Malone/Stockton beat LA in their peak but "It is only after these teams got even older and could barely walk that LA had a chance" which is when LA was at their peak, whats the difference? Mute point.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

grelsner96 said:


> The messed up thing about this post is that kobe was a bench player for most of this time. Definitely his second year when jazz went 4-0 and the next year i think he may have started some games. Either way, he was still very young and not even close to his peak. So if you say Malone/Stockton beat LA in their peak but "It is only after these teams got even older and could barely walk that LA had a chance" which is when LA was at their peak, whats the difference? Mute point.


Why the **** did you respond to a nine year old post and actually expect an answer to be made...good ****ing christ didn't we just have this happen not to long ago?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Rereading this thread was fun. I miss mook, skywalker, and bball doctor. I had some good arguments with those guys once upon a time.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Wow. The basketball fans once had a joek...


----------



## MDanton (Dec 29, 2012)

MemphisX said:


> Really. Other than the top 4-5 teams name these teams that had 3 players with solid mid range jumpers.....


Lets take 1985 for example:

Celtics: Bird, Ainge, DJ, and even Wedman was decent although he didn't really play that much.
Bucks: Moncrief, Pierce, Cummings
Pistons: Tripucka, Thomas, Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson
Nuggets: English, Lever and Issel
Mavs: Blackman, Harper and Aguirre
Jazz: Dantley and Bailey, can't remember how good Dr. Dunkenstein was from the mid
Spurs: Gervin and Mike Mitchell, maybe Moor and/or Banks, can't remember much about them
Lakers: Scott, Cooper and Magic (who actually had a pretty decent mid jumper, that he didn't is a myth and a bunch of baloney)
Blazers: Drexler, Vandeweghe and Jim Paxson

As for the rest of the league:

Sixers: Erwing and Toney, maybe some more, didn't watch much of the Sixers
Nets: Otis Birdsong
Bullets: Jeff Malone
Knicks: Bernard King
Bulls: MJ and Dailey
Cavs: World B. Free, can't remember the rest
Hawks: Nique and perhaps Rivers
Pacers: Fleming, can't remember the rest
Rockets: McCray and Lloyd
Kings: Theus and Eddie Johnson
Suns: Walter Davis, maybe some others
Sonics: Chambers and Sikma
Clippers: no idea to be honest, didn't watch them
Warriors: Floyd and Short

Hope this satisfies you.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

MDanton said:


> Lets take 1985 for example:
> 
> Celtics: Bird, Ainge, DJ, and even Wedman was decent although he didn't really play that much.
> Bucks: Moncrief, Pierce, Cummings
> ...


How long ago was the post you are responding to here? Did you sign up for this site just to list these players?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I thihnk there's a much more recent thread where we hashed this out from only a few years back - this is so strange that it pops up like this and its the second one in a week

(maybe this is the new a10 thing?)


----------



## MDanton (Dec 29, 2012)

RollWithEm said:


> How long ago was the post you are responding to here? Did you sign up for this site just to list these players?


I checked to see if the poster is still active, if they weren't I wouldn't have bothered.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

MDanton said:


> I checked to see if the poster is still active, if they weren't I wouldn't have bothered.


He definitely is still active. I hope this thread will inspire you to be active as well. Welcome to the site!


----------



## MDanton (Dec 29, 2012)

RollWithEm said:


> He definitely is still active. I hope this thread will inspire you to be active as well. Welcome to the site!


Thank you very much


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

It amazes me that people still think of "mid-range jumpers" as a sort of arcane skill. It's just shooting. But with any jumper the problem is getting separation to shoot them, which is a lot more difficult for perimeter players than big men. This is why so many big men shoot them well (because defenses _want_ a possession to end with a Brandon Bass or Glen Davis long two) and why so many guards try to shoot everything from behind the arc or within ten feet.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

buduan said:


> Like I said before, if you didn't watch the game in the 80's why are you posting?
> 
> A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson, and James Worthy dominated the PF spot in the latter half of the 80's. Rambis started I think one year. He was a heck of a rebounder and defender. Unlike the foul a minute Madsen. The guy is out of control most of the time.
> 
> ...


10 years later I see his response to my post. Is it too late for me to reply?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> 10 years later I see his response to my post. Is it too late for me to reply?


Sure. I'd like to see it.


----------

