The "athlete first, basketball player second" mentality is certainly one major thing. It's all Michael Jordan's fault. Well, not him personally, but his success has changed the whole culture of basketball. Every kid on the street wanted to be like Mike. NBA managements all want to find the next Mike. Now, Mike is no more, guess who is the most admired player? (Hint: the most MJ wannabe) Coaches and GMs think to themselves, "Hmm, MJ was an incredible athlete. He developed his fundamentals, team concepts, and court vision later. So, let's pick up all these great athletes and try to develop them into the next MJ." (Is there any surprise why LeBron was so hyped?) So it used to be that athletic abilities are the tools to enhance your basketball skills. Now, your basketball skills are the tools to better utilize your athletic abilities. See the difference?
Yep. Good point. It's symptomatic of how the league has been going for some time now. Can't really blame the and1 style. It's all they know right now.
They should move the 3 point line back to were it used to be in 1993-94. That way we'd only have real 3 point shooters taking shots. It's was a sad attempt of the NBA to move the line in, and then back a little the following year in order to produce higher scoring competitions. It was an aberration. So, a team might have produced 95 point games, but you really didn't have guys making MORE shots. It was a band-aid for bad shooting. It's rewarding players with 3 points, for making a shot that is easier. Tks, tsk..
Yep. Kids looked at Jordan and said, "I wanna be like Mike." But they really didn't know what it took to be like Mike. They didn't realize all the work he did behind closed doors. They never saw his work ethic. The kids saw him dunking in games or doing all this spectacular stuff. But they didn't know what type of hard-work it took in order for Jordan to do all those things. Your last statement deserves repeating. "So it used to be that athletic abilities are the tools to enhance your basketball skills. Now, your basketball skills are the tools to better utilize your athletic abilities. See the difference?" The way I like to look at this is this way... It used to be: Players depended on their basketball skills first, and any natural athletic abilities they had was a bonus. Today: Players depend on their athletic ability first, and any basketball skills they know are a bonus.
Well, you need to look deeper. I agree that 6th man players of today are very good players....but.... ...the REASON they are very good is because they do what it TAKES to become GOOD! They tend to learn the compete game, rahter than a few aspects of it and then rely on their "athletic ability (they have some, but not the same as the super-stars)." It's almost of a blue-collar attitude they take in order to "make the starting lineup." So, the mentality of the 6th man is different than the "super star" of today; The "super star" tends to depend on their natural althetic ablity, rather than developing their basketball rudiments. Something that the 6th man needs to take very seriously. So, the problem is not the 6th man of today. It's the 1st man of today (or at least the ones that the NBA tries to push in our faces).
That depends on what you consider, "above-average." It's "what they know," not how high they can jump.
I may actually be in the minority here, but I don't think shooting is the typical NBA'ers problem. The average NBA player is & can become a fairly decent shooter with work. However, a basic level of offensive competency is what's really lacking; just knowing how & when to get a decent shot off, how to draw fouls, playing off the ball (which has gone the way of the mid-range J & dinosaurs), etc. That echoes the "athletes 1st, basketball 2nd" mentality, a lot of these guys just don't have a clue of how to play offense. Case in point, Richard Jefferson, the guy everyone here likes to lament over. He's a good guy, great athlete, moves well, plays hard, but is just as clueless offensively as Eddie Griffin (OK, maybe not as clueless, but not a whole lot better either). Yeah, Jefferson will make the occassional strong drive, or hit a nice jumper or 2, but he also isn't good at creating space (despite his quickness), and has no mid-range game at all. And the sad thing is, there are a ton of guys even more limited than RJ, at least Jefferson seems like a hard worker. We can blame SportsCenter or MJ all we want, but then again who's teaching (or not) these kids how to play? Coaches? Sneaker hustlers, ERR, "AAU Sponsors"?
I've wanted the league to start calling T's on flops for years. Sorta like redcarding a flop in soccer. Quit rewarding bad defense. Now that Stockton is out of the league it seems like the perfect opportunity. I also think while the defensive 3 second rule would help, but it won't if they never call it!!!!! I see lots & lots of violations in the games today with very few calls.
How could stern turn down the $300 million that was paid to him for the *rights* to open the new Charlotte franchise? quantity over quality = $$ for Mr. $tern.
the problem is players today don't play the way the DavidS's of the world want them to. and since it isn't asthetically appealing, the assumption is it is lower quality, which isn't right. there isn't the free flowing, passing, hit all your jumpshots offenses that there were in the 80's and before. there is a ton more based on individual skill (and kickouts for 3's), and there is much more individual scoring skill in today's players than there was in the past. there is also more defense played and more focus on defense, and less on transition baskets, than ever before. this slows the game down and lowers scores. again, people may not like to look at it, but it doesn't lower the quality. i'll never understand how today's players are the ones that get ragged on for not playing defense. while i was only born in 81, i've seen my fair share of nba's greatest games and espn classic stuff to at least get an idea of the game of the past. teams seemed far more loaded with offense than defense. having everybody on the court able to hit a jump shot was a good thing. having everybody on the court being able to guard the guy taking the jump shot, not so important. coaches today would call timeouts and rip someone a new one for some of the lackadaisical defense from the past. it was accepted back then. even my sister agrees (in a roundabout way). i have this clip of a lakers/celtics 86 finals game burned in my head. larry bird catches the ball with worthy on him. you know, HOFer, league MVP, amazing pure shooter larry bird. so where is worthy. about 4 feet off of bird, as if bird is going to use his blinding speed to blow by him. after about a second and a half, bird, realizing worthy isn't coming out, raises up for a jumper. worthy doesn't budge. jumper swished. i was astonished. james worthy just put absolutely no effort into guarding larry bird. the announcers didn't seem to find it strange. riley didn't call a timeout and chew him out. the game just went on. now, a few days ago, we go to a relative's house, and i get the remote so my sister is at my mercy. i turn it on espn, and that game is on. that clip comes on. my sister kinda makes a noise of surprise. up to that point she had just been whining for me to turn it (she doesn't like bball or any sport). noticing the noise i ask "what? that he didn't even try to guard him" and she says "yeah." so my sister, who doesn't give a damn and wants me to turn it was even shocked by the play and even made shocked noise over it. and from everything else i've watched, it is quite sympomatic of D back in the day. it made for prettier bball and higher scores, but not for better play. hell, another famous play. that clip of MJ toying with bird on the perimeter in isolation during his 63 point game. larry bird got iso'd on MJ and his teammates just watched? if that was today, all 4 teammates, the bench, the coach, the waterboy, the national guard and the fbi would've run to bird's rescue (knowing he wasn't quick and had no chance). as it was, MJ toys with him and strokes a 17 footer. nowadays reggie miller has to run through 18 picks, 4 more double picks and some illegal screens just so he can catch, turn, and shoot all in one motion while moving away from the basket with a guy's hand in his face just to shoot a 3. there is no way defenses aren't more sophisticated, more focused on by coaches, and played better than ever before. it doesn't make it prettier, but it doesn't make it worse. feigen even mentions it with the defenders (without many offensive skills) are brought in to stop the guys with amazing individual ability. it is more common today to be all D and no O whereas before the opposite was true in the past. so to me, that is where the problem lies. we have traded O for D and people don't like it (of course in baseball we traded D for O and people don't like that either). but players today aren't worse. when y'all say, they are better athletes but worse bball players, is bball players referring to the overall product or that which emcompasses fundamentals and the understanding of the game. while i agree fundamentals may have gone down, the increase in athleticism has more than compensated for it and an average team of today's players would beat a team of average players from the 80's. it would beat average teams worse and worse as you went backwards in time. today's players are better than ever, people just don't like to watch it (i probably could've just said that instead of that long post).
I love this part..."There isn't that free flowing, passing, HIT YOUR JUMPSHOTS offense (today)..." That's what some here were trying to say! And if you think that ISO plays and kicking it out to the 3 pointer is considered " a skill" you have a lot to learn about "the game." Running a fast break, 3 on 2 and kicking it out to the 3 is a result of not knowing how to score on the fast break. I see that time and time again. It's sad. Although, Payton, Kidd Stockton, and Murbury were very good at completing the fast break. Over-all, the league relies on the 3 as a bailout ("which way do I go, which way do I go...?"). And your last statment (above) is inaccurate. There were a lot of indiviual scorers in the 70/80, it's just that they didn't implement it all the time. They relied on team play first, and then relied on individual scoring second. The players today have the choice to concentrate on the learning the team game, but the don't. They PREFER the individual game. Mostly due to misconceptions of what it takes to be a "basketball player." And ever further, a champion. Now, this is not saying that ALL of them do this. But it's been an overall trend for the last 10 years. It IS improving though. As far as "asthetically appealing, the assumption is it is lower quality." You talk about today's "great defense"... But what you get when you have, "great defense" added to "sub-par TEAM offensive?" I call that a bad mix! And it surely wont be asthetically appealing to the layperson, NOR the basketball purist. So, the fan looses on both counts. And please don't get "individual offensive" confused with "team offenses." You keep doing that. I think you asked a question in your first sentence. The answer is both. The over-all game has suffered, and they lack an understanding of the "team" game. Just to clarify... "basketball player" is one that knows all facets of the game; shooting, passing, team offense, FT, and defense. This was Jordan is his later years, and Matt Harpring today. So, having a gift (natural athletic ability) is NOT a reason to NOT learn the "game." But players today use it as a crutch. "iso/or idividual player." is one that uses his natural athletic ability to get an advantage on his opponent; run faster, jump higher, block shots better, etc..." They rather ISO than run plays, they hate to pass, and they would rather dunk, than learn how to shoot. This was Kobe and Murbury in the PAST (they've since learned), and Francis today (realizing). The increased athelticsim has NOT compenstated. If you took an average team of today, and had them play an average team of the 80's, guess what would happen? The AVERAGE team (remember, no stars) of today, would have such a hard time scoring that they would resort to DEFENSE. See, if their ISO plays aren't hitting (using their average players), then they have to use DEFENSE. Cause and effect. The AVERAGE team (no stars) of the 80's would struggle against the defense of the current team, true. But they would resort to more TEAM play in order to counter the defense. Rememer, the AVERAGE team of yesterday COULD play defense too. It just wasn't relied on solely. Want an average team of the 80's? Your own Rockets of '81 (40-42). The league was just that much more consolidated and the top teams were very balanced. So, even a team like the Rockets that had Mosses, Murphy and the "Wopper." They were very skilled in TEAM play AND IDIVIDULAL play. They had both concepts down! I ejoyed watching the 76 - 81 Rockets. It was just that they were outmatched league wise. You keep using the current days defense as an excuse. But yesterdays defense, although not stressed as much, it was intense when they wanted to be. But they didn't have to rely on it as much since the concept of TEAM offense was understood and applied on the basketball court. And the scarier part was that the elite teams like the Lakers, Phoneix, Philedelphia, Boston, Milwaukee had more depth and talent and they incorporated TEAM offense as well. So even if you brought great defense to the table, the TEAM OFFENSE could find a way to counter that. Remember, that great DEFENSE can be counter by greater TEAM OFFENSE. And sometimes greater INDIVIDULAL offense (like the case of Jordan, Dr. J, or Murphy going ISO). But you don't want to RELY on that INDIVIDUAL OFFENSE all the time. You want to rely on TEAM OFFENSE most of the time. You only go ISO when you HAVE to (clutch situations or when the clock is running down). If you rely on TEAM offense most of the time, wins will come eaiser beccause you are doing it collectively. It just averages out better. Then, when you have tough games, and the clock is running out, you can go to your "stars" to go ISO and steal a win. But that only happens in the last few minutes/seoncds of a game. Not every play. TEAM offense does the grunt work, ISO offense does the "hero" work. We have an imbalance today. Everyone wants to be the "hero" on every play; hence slaping the back board after a dunk, saying "and1" after a foul, and jumping up and down after hitting a mid-court shot...all in the 2ND QUARTER! Uh, the game is 48 minutes guys! Those plays mean nothing if we don't get the win. They need to look at the big picture, not the individual "spectacular" play.
wait........athleticism can compensate for fundamentals/skills? Anyway, I don't think people would have issues with the league if the lack of offense was attributed to excellent defense......but it's not! For every Payton, there's 100 Fishers that have mastered the art of falling with the slightest bit of contact. If the defense was so great, why was the Zone introduced into the league? To promote offense..... It's for all these overpaid pricks that can't/won't play defense. So what do they do instead, pull a Vlade. Time goes by and this BS continues, so the stupid semi-circle inside the paint appears. Why.....to help these excellent defenders know where to go and stand still. .....and Reggie has always been the master of going through 500 picks to get his shot off. Moving without the ball. I know many don't know of it, or have even heard of it, but it's a useful tactic in a 'team environment'. It's what the pick-and-roll has basically become, and the mid-range jumpshot currently is.......EXTINCT.
