In defense of today's NBA

[KK <Kestutis.Kveraga@Dartmouth.EDU>]

"R. Bentz Kirby" wrote:
> 
> Our local tv editor, who used to be a sports writer, wrote a column
> stating that the best NBA is on tape.  Essentially stating that few
> players today can shot or pass well.  If you are interested, the url is
> 
> http://www.thestate.com/columnists/nye/nyetv29.htm

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit tired of these misty-eyed
"oldtimer" laments about how great the NBA was in the 60s, and how today's
players can't score to save their lives ,and the game sucks compared to the
60s' version. My first question is, how do they know that? People who could
truly evaluate the NBA throughout the 60's can't be younger than late
fifties, and I don't think many of them are, certainly not most of the
Celtics beat writers. Since being able to offer a 40-year observer
perspective is one of the most valuable credentials a journalist can have,
no wonder so many of them claim to have seen James Naismith invent the game
of basketball. This Nye guy at least admits that his perspective comes from
watching "The NBA's Greatest.." tapes, but is apparently not smart enough to
realize he's watching highlight films. Hey, make a highlight film of any
listmember's best basketball moments, and we'd all begin to look like the
second coming of Larry Bird.  

Now this thing about the 60s championships being far more valuable because
they were won in an 8-team league. Excuse me, but what was the population of
the United States in 1960 and, more importantly, how many people were
seriously playing basketball in these days? Also, was basketball as popular
outside the States as it is now? What I'm getting at is, the talent pool was
much smaller than it is now, especially since the money to be earned playing
basketball professionally can't even be compared. Besides, they had to play
many fewer games to get to the top.
 
Scoring: first of all, I don't understand what's so exciting about seeing
300 points scored in a game. Almost by definition, there had to be little or
no defense played in such games. If an "oldtimer" wants to see a vintage
1960s 300- point game, all he or she has to do is watch one of these benefit
games that NBA stars sometimes put on. The All-Star games used to be like
that, but now they've started playing some defense in those as well. My
point is, I'd rather see a 150-point game where tough, sophisticated defense
is being played and each point is EARNED. It's easy to score 300 points when
no one is guarding anyone. Besides, if the 60s' basketball was so exciting,
how come the Celtics averaged 8,000 fans in these days?

Shooting: I think this is yet another myth that "oldtimer" scribes like to
indulge in. Just taking the Utah-Portland series, whenever Stockton,
Hornacek, Malone (except in the last game), Russell, Anderson were lucky
enough to get open, they made the shot virtually every time. Malone and
Hornacek were so automatic when open in the first 5 games that I could only
shake my head in apprehensive admiration. Same for the Blazers, or at least
their shooters, who comprise about 3/4 of the team. The misses came mostly
under extreme pressure, while being double- and triple-teamed. I see plenty
of great shooters in today's NBA, even in this freak season. 

I didn't watch the NBA in the 60s, but wasn't it the case that the great
Celtics teams were anchored by shooters like Cousy (~37% career) and Bill
Russell, who didn't have a shot to speak of? Those with decent shooting
percentages boosted them by making many layups on the fast break. And what
about long-range shooting that Nye dismisses along with the dunk? How many
players in the 60s could shoot from 24 feet out at 40% accuracy, sometimes
under heavy pressure? Is that a trivial skill? 

Former players like to talk about how they would dominate the game today.
Bollocks, I say. The great Celtics of the 60s would be chewed up and spit
out by the defense of teams like the Trailblazers or the Knicks. I'd like to
see 6-9, 220-pound Bill Russell stop 350-pound Shaq from establishing
himself under the basket and then slamming it home, or watch Cousy guard
Iverson (I'm talking Russell and Cousy in their prime, of course). There'd
obviously be some notable exceptions, like Chamberlain or Big O (I don't
mean Ostertag!). But, even if yesterday's players had more overall skill on
the average, the problem is, when skill is matched against power and
athletic prowess, skill usually loses. If you don't believe me, watch U.S.
Women Nationals (who are supposedly very fundamentally skilled) play a game
against a lousy men's college team and get creamed. I know that whenever I
watch 60s and 70s films, it looks like they're playing in slow motion, and
the physiques of most players make Banana Boy look like Arnold
Schwarznegger.