1987 all nba vs 2002 all nba

This is for the 87-88 NBA season?

Was this second team All-NBA that season?

Karl Malone, Utah
Dominique Wilkins, Atlanta
Patrick Ewing, New York
Clyde Drexler, Portland
John Stockton, Utah

If so, I doubt that the 2002 1st and 2nd Team could take the 87-88 1st and 2nd Team to seven games. Maybe 5 games.


Mango

 

2002 because of the big frontcourt. Shaq in my opinion is the best center ever, Duncan will likly be a top 3 PF by the end of his career if not the best. Kobe and McGrady are quick as hell. Bird can not guard TMAC, TMAC has the size and good defense to slow down Bird. Kidd in a fast break with TMAC, Kobe, and Duncan is scary.

1987 has the best player ever in Jordan, who would destroy Kobe. But he wont dominate because of Shaq and Duncan inside two of the best shot blockers in the league. Magic is better then Kidd, Bird is better overrall player then TMAC, but he cant guard TMAC. Duncan at 7'1 would just shoot over Barkley whos around 6'4. Hakeem will score against Shaq, but he'll get killed in the post.

In all 2002 wins because of Kidd fast breaking with Kobe and TMAC, and they have two 7 footers who can just swat anything that comes in.

 

-Jordan would dominate, but he wouldn't score 37. coaches and defenses simply would not allow that it today's game. first, people actually play defense nowadays and anyone who dominates like jordan did would see too many double teams to get to 37. remember vince carter against the knicks last year, he NEVER wasn't double teamed, same thing would pretty much happen to jordan. he could've led the league, but he wouldn't have 37, the game is just too different.

- The league as a whole has become more athletic, but I don't think individuals are any more athletic than MJ. Plus today's players 1-on-1 defense isn't as good as 15 yrs ago. I think Jordan would've still score around 35 a game if he would of just came in to the league 2 yrs ago. The whole league had to adjust their defenses to slow Jordan after those couple of years where he avg'd around 35. Even in his championship years around 93, he was averaging 33 pts! thats only two freaking jumpers below 37 pts!

 

wow, the triangle run by one team is from the 50's, nothing has changed at all! teams do play more D and if you don't believe that you're an idiot. teams didn't score 110 and 120 regularly back then just b/c people could shoot better, it's b/c there wasn't as much D to score on. imagine the whole nba playing D like the rockets do now.

 

1987 without a doubt.

lets review

Kidd-Johnson: Magic is the best point guard ever. Kidd may not even be the best point guard now. Magic could see his teammates everywhere they were. Kidd also. But Magic could dominate everywere. he could score better than kidd. he played Center in game 6 of the finals in his rookie year and dominated. i do not see kidd do that.

Bryant-Jordan: Do i even need to say anything?? Jordan is a better scorer than bryant and he is a better defender. he is the best player ever to play the game. And the best clutch player ever.

mcgrady-Bird. ok so maybe Bird can't defend Tracy. But he does have help from the best shot blocker ever to play in the nba (dream). And mcgrady can't stop bird either. Bird was a great shooter and has a great basketbal IQ. he would Kill mcgrady on offensive end.

Duncan-Barkley. Again Barkley coudn't defend Duncan. But Duncan can't defend Barkley either. Barkley was to explosive and fast for duncan. But i do give 2002 their first upperhand in this matchup.

O'neal-Olajuwon. Olajuwon is the best defensive center of the last years. maybe shaq is the most dominent. i think neither could stop each other. Shaq isn't a good defender. and Dream is. i would call it a draw

so only Duncan has the upper hand. i don't know why does everybody think that the players today are so much greater than some of the player who are recognized as the best ever.

a team with clutchplayers as Bird and Jordan will not lose a game.

 

I think you need to reevaluate what an idiot is. someone who has seen basketball in the 80's and is commenting on what they remeber or someone who watched some highlight films and knows exactly how the game was played in the 80's. you got me you obviously know what was happening in the 80's. you saw a few games on ESPN, 1 question though, how do you know that the rest of the NBA played defense like the rockets now? You didnt even see it. HA HA HA HA HA HA

"i'm not old enough to have actively watched the nba in the 80's but from all of espn's greatest games ever stuff, which would seem to be the highest level of the game in that period." anyone who makes this comment laks the validity to post in this thread. you didnt even see these guys play. you saw some games on ESPN. these are not the highest level of basketball, but rather the most exciting games.

the reason teams score less now is becuase of anal retentive coaches in the leauge. Its all about controlling the clock, teams are now allowed to get back on D. teams rarlely push it up the court, shooting percentages are not that much diffrent today from the 80's but in the 80's people took a lot more shots in a game. BECAUSE they tried to push the ball up the court, beat the D back and get a good shot. teams are still playing D, but back then the O was acutally trying to beat the D rather than look for mismatches and exploit them. this may be hard for you to belive, but many think the level of play has dropped off from the 80's. Players arent as good of shooters, or the dont have as good IQ as the players of old. I think the fact that Jordan, Malone, stockton, and dream where and some still dominate the game today at the ripe age of 38-40 says a lot about the level of play today.

A little math quiz for you. Fat and Jason both shoot 40% fat takes 20 shots while jason takes 13, who will score more? that is why teams of the 80's scored more, not becuase they were terrible defenders.

 

Let's look at it with a focus on transition:

Magic vs. Kidd: Each can get up the court and push the ball. Kidd is an exceptional passer, Magic is the best ever in transition. Both can rebound to start the break, but Magic is going to get the tougher rebounds and will have more success at keeping Kidd off the boards than the other way around. Kidd is a marginal offensive threat. Magic has to be guarded at all times.

Advantage: Magic

Jordan vs. Kobe: Both get up and down. Both attack the rack. Both have good jump shots. Jordan's the better defender. Jordan will get the steal or the crucial tough rebound more often. Chance that Jordan will get into Kobe's head. Jordan is more clutch.

Advantage: Jordan


Barkley vs. Duncan: Barkley beats Duncan down the court 19 times out of 20. Duncan is good at grabbing a rebound and making the outlet. Barkley is good at grabbing the rebound and blasting to the other basket. Duncan can shoot over Barkley. Barkley is going to attack the basket and Shaq every time he gets around Duncan. This is a mismatch for both players depending on the situation, but because I think Barkley will get more of the tough rebounds,

Advantage: Barkley

Bird vs. McGrady: McGrady is definitely the more athletic and faster than Bird. But then again, that could be said about most of the players Bird faced. McGrady beats Bird down the court, but Bird would know enough to slow him down and occasionally frustrate him. Bird knew how to make players understimate him so he could later take advantage. I think smarts overcome physical gifts, but let's say,

Advantage: Even

Hakeem vs. Shaq: The most intriguing matchup and the most dependent on eras. If the game is called as it is now, I don't think the '87 Hakeem has the smarts to give in when necessary to stay out of foul trouble. If the game is called as it was then, chances are Shaq fouls out before Hakeem. Hakeem is the last offensive option on this team due to his being the poorest passer. This frees him up to expend energy on defense and rebounding. Shaq will have to work hard at both ends. In transition, Hakeem beats Shaq downcourt everytime. No contest there. Edge in team transition defense to Hakeem. Rebounds even. Shaq is probably better at starting the break than '87 Hakeem.

Advantage: Even

Team Transition: Bird, Barkley, Jordan and Magic can handle the ball on the break. McGrady, Kobe, and Kidd can handle the ball on the break. You don't want Duncan, Shaq, or Hakeem bringing the ball upcourt against such quickness. The extra ball handler for '87 gives them a big advantage. Bird and Magic give '87 two superior passers. Only Kidd can fits that description for '02. Big advantage '87. On defense, Hakeem's going to beat Shaq back every time and contest every shot that gets by the perimeter. The rest will play the passing lanes better than '02. Shaq will be doubled often because '87 can afford to lay off of Kidd to some degree.

Advantage: 1987.

Intangibles: In my opinion, there's more fire and savvy on 1987 than 2002. I think McGrady, Kobe, and Shaq would eventually become frustrated by the relentless play of 1987.

Advantage: 1987

Winner: 1987

 

1987, no question. The only problem they would have is not having Shaq dominate. But Hakeem would have Ewing and Malone to help. As much as Barkley was an unguardable phenom then and offensively would destroy anyone 02 put out there, Karl Malone might have been the match up for this series. Hakeem and Malone in 87 probably could neutrelize Shaq and Duncan of 02, and Magic, MJ and Bird would absolutely destroy Kidd, Kobe and T-Mac in the team game.

As far as those who don't think MJ could score 37, Iverson has scored around 30 the last 2 years. Do you really not believe MJ in his prime still wouldn't be 5-6-7 more points than AI?

It is also not fair to Bird to say Tracey is anywhere in his league as a player (as a team player at least). You could mention Tracey along with Dominique, or Bernard, or maybe even Dr. J. (this is probably a stretch too), but as much as I *hate* to admit it (I hated Boston), Bird is another class better than those guys.

 

Your right MJ probably would not score 37 a game he would probably score over 40.

Maybe you should remember that the low post players of the 80s were far superior to the low post players of today.

Jordan scored most of his points driving to the basket in the 80's and the people in the paint waiting for him were:
Dream
Jabar
Ewing
Lambeer
Parish
Robinson
Car
Willis
Eton
Kersy

And those were just some of the centers. There were some very physical power forwards to:
Thorp
Malone
Larry Nance
Rodman
Mahorn
Oakley
McHale

With the exception of Shaq and Duncan the low post players of today are panzies. MJ would average just as many points if not more today if he were 26.

And just to set the record straight about Vince Carter...he ain't no Jordan.

 

Very good point because Shaq and Duncan are the only low post players in the NBA that is physical enough to play with the low post players of the 80s. There were plenty of great low post players in the 80s

 

1987, in a blowout!

But in defense of the 2002 team, with the exception of Shaq, those guys haven't even hit their prime years yet. Give 'em a few years, assuming they all continue to grow and improve, and this is probably (hopefully) a wash.

True, but don't knock the athleticism of the '87 team, now.

The '87 team matches up well across the board, and Bird was one of the most underrated players from an athletic standpoint in NBA history.

Deceptively quick, great body control and balance, good first step, Bird had a lot of physical tools.

 

well you can't shoot 40% if you take 13 shots so you're math quiz is invalid. nevertheless, you again stated teams shot more and that's why offense was up. so how does that show that jordan would still be able to score 37? because his team would magically be the only one still pushing it and shooting a lot? no, jordan's average would follow the general trend of lower scoring and would not be what it was if he was playing now.

 

ok, i'll compromise on one front, jordan's scoring average. in 86-87 he averaged 37, number 2 was wilkins at 29!! while the other high scorers averaged a little more than today's, it was only a little so jordan's 8 point differential is still ridiculous. so i guess he could average 37 nowadays. however, i will refuse to believe for as long as i live that they played as much D in the 80's or payed as much attention to it relative to offense as they do now. someone besides IVFL, back me up here. defense was much more lax in the 80's than it is today, correct? or did they just turn the defensive intensity way down for playoff games. and don't only mention the pistons as a counterargument.

 

You have to understand basketball I guess. there is more than one way to play the game, If your team lacks the overall talent or has a great half court team, its wise for the coach to slow it down and work for everything they can get. thats whats happening today, Seriously the talent level is way down, there are 6 new teams in the last 12 years, thats 90 guys who would not have been in the leauge in 87. with 29 teams now, there are 3 guys who shouldnt even be on each team then add to the mix the mass exodus of unpolished highschool and college kids coming out early, cough*william avery*cough. Your overall talent on teams is watered down, So what do coaches do? they slow down the game cough*pat riley mike Fratello*cough and win with ugly ball. Other coaches see this and think, hey my team is very average this is a good way to compete, see larry brown, and Lenny Wilkens. Soon its "the way to win" and the model coches are useing to be compete. So they slow it down work for everything and the game becomes very stagnent, stale and slow. hence the low scores. there is a lot more that can be factored into this, closer 3 point line, officiating, and the absence of a mid range game,


Teams of the 80's had to pay attention to D, the fast break is predicated on getting DEFENSIVE STOPS, Its very difficult to fast break when the other team is already waiting at the other end. If you dont want to belive me, go look up the shooting percentages of then and now, if they are relativly the same, I would bet that the same amout of Defense is being played, Fg% steals and rebounds are better indicators of how much D is being played than the score. the score says very little about defense, FG% says a lot. Look at Fat Lever, he shot under 40% and still averaged 23+ points a game.

Now let me rephrase that question for you, 2 players have an average shooting percentage of 40% one shoots 20 times the other 13 who will score more?

Kareem was a freak of nature, thats why he stayed competative. there will probably never be another big man like him.

Believe what you want, if you feel the few games you watched on ESPN are indicators of how they played in the 80's so be it, thats your choice, I saw countless games an can tell you from first hand knowledge that in 87 hard D was being played by a lot of teams, the celtics included

 

Don't confuse great "D" with what most teams do today. Most teams bring the ball up the court and run the 24 second clock down to almost nothing on a regular basis. In the 80's the fast break was what it was all about. Teams did not use the 24 second clock to intentionally slow the game down the way they do today.

I will put almost any of the Eastern conference teams up against any team today as far as D goes.
The Knicks, Pistons and Hawks were all exceptional defensive teams, but they did not slow the game down on offense by running the 24 second clock down to nothing.

 

while younger guys and high schoolers may not be great or understand the game, the don't play a tremendous amount.

back to the argument. ok, i'll try another route. players are more athletic today. yes 87 had nique and jordan, etc but the average player is more athletic, hell we draft people now based on how athletic they are a lot of the time. i still say this and the fact more attention is payed to defense slows the game down. i view it a lot like i view the nfl. while expansion is hurting the qb position and dumbing down offenses, i also think that as defenders continue to get bigger while being faster and the field stays the same size, it gets easier to cover. well players today are a little more athletic and the court is still the same size. they can now cover more of it and disrupt offenses easier. just a little bit more attention payed to defense combined with that exacerbates the problem ever further. so i guess you can think that lower talent levels is making offenses worse and i'll just believe that athleticism, attention, and the quick rush to copy anything that works are what made defense more prevalent.

also, y'all keep telling me people fast broke (can you say that) a lot more. well i say concentrating on the fast break more means you have to concentrate less on defense. there's only so much concentrating to go around. getting a fast break from a defensive stop or turnover is different than being a fast breaking team. i think we all agree dallas is a fast breaking team, and that they certainly don't rely on defense. they just push the ball, push the ball, push the ball. sactown plays decent defense but still just forces tempo essentially. are there any other fast breaking teams to look at? saying teams liked to fast break more just doesn't equate to them liking defense just the same as today to me.

also, what the hell does "i guess you just have to understand basketball" mean. what, am i talking to certified basketball genius IVFL here or something. i understand the game plenty well and just because you believe you are right doesn't mean i don't understand anything. nothing says you are right. of course, nothing says i'm right so i won't say you don't understand either.

 

ok i don't know how old crash is, but i just looked and IVFL, you were born in 1977. all of 4 years before me. lets see, that made you 3 when the 80's started and 10 when this whole 1987 thing was going on. are you saying you were an inciteful observer of the state of the nba game when you were 10?? can anyone on this board say they were. i highly doubt it. so basically its the analysis of a 10 year old vs nba's greatest games, not exactly a matchup filled with a bounty of firsthand knowledge here so i don't know why i should except anything you say over what i say. now if crash is a lot older, that's a different story.

 

1987 not even close.

All those guys were not only great players, but had very high basketball IQ's, can you say the same for the players of 2002?

Not even close, at least not yet.

DaDakota

 

We should just settle this by having all the young guys and the ancient guys on this board play a game.