Would NBA stars now be Stars in the 70's, 80's or 90's?

If these vets were acknowledging that the current players are playing the game that is in front of them, their comments would hold more weight. It is different, but these guys are still playing by the current rules. I wish these vets would take the Matt Bullard/Clyde Drexler route and explain how hand checks and hard fouls have changed basketball as a sport. Who cares about who was better, we can't prove that, but we can all argue the integrity of basketball.

Take the players out, just discuss the greatest game humanity has every come up with.

(no disrespect to soccer and cricket (and to a lesser extent rugby and american football))

 

I get tired of old guys in every sport trying to claim how much better the game was in their era. In 20 years, Harden and Curry will be doing the same thing with players in the 2030's.

Basketball is being played my more people than ever, the talent pool the NBA is selecting from is huge, and we have more film and computers to dissect every step of what teams do. Bigger, stronger, faster, unless something causes the popularity to decrease, players will continue to get better overall, even if the rules cause the game to stylistically evolve.

 

Actually, I was 12 in 1990. I grew up on 1990s basketball and enjoyed it a ton because the Rockets won two titles and the Jordan/Pippen Bulls were a blast to watch. I just don't pretend that it was objectively better basketball, nor do I hold onto the myth that defenses were better. Pretty much any knowledgeable observer understands that defensive schemes are far more sophisticated today than they were in the '90s, especially the early '90s.

 

These threads always pop up to discredit the best players of today's game.

 

Well, the didn't hide the zones they were running because they largely weren't...the illegal defense rule being retired is the main reason that defensive schemes can be more flexible and sophisticated, as it frees players up to rove more both on the strong side and the weak side. The illegal defense helped offense a lot, especially offenses that had isolation (or one-on-one) stars, as you could "clear out" a side of the court by moving four of your players to the weak side, forcing the defense to put four of their defensive players on that side, and allowing your star to work one-on-one with a defender. That created very static and stagnant offense and defense.

The removal of the rule has allowed for much more free-flowing defense which, in turn, has forced offense to be more dynamic and passing heavy to defeat defenses that can provide a lot of different looks depending on the situation.

 

You're confusing playing to the edge of the illegal defense rules with playing zone and getting away with it. There was no way to "zone" clear-out plays...either you were on the weak side or you were on the strong side when the four offensive players all went to the same side of the court. Seattle didn't play zone against Olajuwon and the Rockets, they cheated into him as much as they could within the rules, but the rules limited them a ton. Defenses today are more unfettered and that's opened up plenty of tactical options that defenses of the past didn't have.

Beyond you confusing trying to cheat towards the ball within the rules with zone defense, the rest of your post was largely about whether it was easier or harder to coach defense. I don't know or really much care whether it was easier or harder to coach defense back then. What I know is that coaches can be more imaginative and deploy more looks on defense than ever before, and that's made defenses more multiple in their looks and less stagnant.

 

:grin:

Great post, and very true!

 

Sorry but this video really pisses me off. It's so dumb.

You're comparing hard fouls with touch fouls. Not average fouls vs average fouls at all. It's like comparing Michael Jordan to Marcus Thornton and saying the NBA is better now.

 

*NBA was better back then

 

But zone defenses are completely legal, now . If defense has managed to be great in a era that is built for offense (without physical play), what does that say about defenses from the past. Doesn't that speaks volumes to the type schemes being used or possibly the greater individual ability of the athletes (who are potentially better defenders)?

Remember, most of the record level defenses were played in 2000s by teams, like the Spurs, Pistons, and Heat who were keeping teams in the low 90s with FG%. No one in years. before came to that level outside of Chicago, New York, and Detroit. Remember, teams could body up their opponents a little more.

 

Let's not forget the NBA shortened the 3point line from 1994-1997. Imagine today's stars with that shorter three point line.

 

For me a great player will always be great in whatever era they will always find a way to abuse the rules.

But will small ball works in the 70s, 80s and 90s?

 

I think all of todays stars would do alright back then offrnsively, especially guys like harden, curry, Lebron, westbrooke or durant, who have size, shooting and slashing ability. It's the defense that I think would be different. All these 'superstar' players in today's league who can take a break with all the help defense will get exposed big time with the illegal defense rules.

But I would love to see hardens defense back then. He would look like a joke trying to defend guys one on one