Quote:
Originally Posted by estefaniocurry
Can someone explain to me the case for the league being better now than it was in the 80s and 90s? There's clearly a change at the end of the 70s, early 80s when salaries skyrocketed (I don't know exactly when it was) with the corresponding increase in professionalism, but in the late 80s and early 90s there was already plenty of money on the table.
I watch ball now I see a lot of sloppy play with the ball, everyone spread out around the arc, no one inside, no one stopping penetration, not much post play. It's clearly different, and part of it is clearly the defensive rule changes. But, it seems much easier to get off a shot. There's clearly a preference now for mobile players and shooters, but there's not much ball movement, just 1-2-3 shoot, and too many open shots.
Summary, I don't see it as self evident that Lebron faces the kind of competition that Jordan did. Watching him just go to the basket at will against Boston makes that idea hard to accept, as good as Lebron is (someone will say: Tristan Thompson). The reason us old people love Iverson so much in spite of his Kobe like statistics is that we remember that little tiny guy getting to the hoop through a sea of Oakley minded defenders. Same for someone like Bird (Lebron's game reminds me most of Bird's, he's just a better athlete).
Just using actual logic instead of the weird reverse-logic of "people were tougher and better for some unknown reason decades ago than they are now", it's self-evident that more worldwide interest in the league, higher salaries, more access to basketball at a younger age, increased competition due to all of this, smarter body and sports science, and smarter coaching and management would lead to better play.
"I see a lot of sloppy play with the ball" is likely not true in comparison with the '80s-'90s.
"Everyone spread out around the arc" - yes this is generally a good thing, because unlike morons in the '80s-'90s, coaches of today have often done some simple math and found that 3s > 2s. They've even done complex math and found that, say, a 33% chance of hitting a 3 is better than even a 49% of hitting a 2.
"No one inside" is not true.
"No one stopping penetration" is of course not true, but if it there is truth to it then it's due to better offensive play, perhaps more screens (don't know), less aggressive defense allowed, generally more complex tactical plays drawn up as well as athleticism to trigger penetration, and sometimes defenses "allowing" penetration in order to prevent 3s. Will get to this below.
"Not much post play" is true to an extent, partly because of rule changes, and partly because the types of shots generated from post play are often not efficient. There may be less incredible big men available at the moment, just due to variance (we're not living in an era where Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing are all active)? I don't know.
Some teams such as the Spurs have gone against a lot of this, intentionally. They have focused on some more post play, zagging while the league is zigging. When they played the Rockets, their goal seemed to be to never allow open 3-pointers. If a Rocket could successfully penetrate, fine, the Spurs big men were waiting near the basket with their arms straight up in the air, refusing to foul and send them to the line.