Re: In defense of today's NBA

[damekmo@teleport.com]

>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.

Careful KK, you're stepping into some treacherous waters. However...as a
friend of mine said, when he heard about the Bill Russell tribute, "When
are you people going to stop living in the past?"

Paul M.





 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.