McCallum on Stern's 25 years as commish

The league's biggest problems are:

1. All those years of high school kids coming out. There was nothing worse than watching a team waste a high pick on a guy who either became a bust or only got good after he became a free agent. That killed the league. The one-year rule is a good thing. It'd be better if it was like the NFL, where they had to stay three years, but that will never happen.

2. The foreign players. It's hard for people to become fans of guys who they didn't watch play in college and don't speak English.

3. No personality among the elite players. Kobe was accused of raping somebody, Duncan has no personality and LeBron's "charm and marketability" is vastly overrated. He's the best in the league from a marketing standpoint, but that's not saying much. He's not Jordan. He's never going to be Jordan.

It's not to say the league needs another Jordan, but another Barkley wouldn't hurt. Another Magic Johnson wouldn't hurt.

 

This is a much better read on what's transpired during Stern's tenure.

http://www.talkingpointfreesports.com/article.aspx?s=2000&su=0&a=100850&t=NBA%3a_%22I_lost_that_loving_feeling%22

 

I don't get your point about HS kids, considering they pan out to become good NBA players more often than do college players.

 

How so? Is the NBA in some sort of dire straits I'm not aware of? Until the latest economic downturn, they were the more profitable than ever.

NBA basketball is the second-most popular game globally next to soccer. All those Chinese who vote Yao Ming onto the All-Star team every year (and damn near voted Yi Jianlian on) have to count for something, right?

 

No, thankfully there aren't too many of these so-called "basketball purists" -- who wish the game was played at a snail's pace with set shots and ten passes before every basket -- left because they have no understanding of the actual game and how it has evolved as athletes have gotten bigger, faster and stronger.

This idea that today's players lack fundamentals is silly and shows a basic ignorance of just how good the players in the NBA actually are.

As for the idea that David Stern is overrated or his impact overstated -- that is so wrong on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to begin.

 

Looking at the death of rivalries in the NBA, dependent on players rather than teams, shows that the league will always be chasing its tail after the next big thing instead of having a consistant and dedicated fan base, consumed by team rivalries, year after year.

And as far as your fundamentals comment earlier, I don't see anything "fundamentally sound" about  7'0 european players who can't play with their backs to the basket and have zero defense.  "suddenly" those fundamental skills don't count.

 

I love the 80s NBA, by far my favorite era of any sports league. But when I watch the tapes now - or watch games from the 70s, the supposed fundamentals aren't that great, and the athleticism top to bottom obviously isn't the same. Guys struggle to dribble with their left hand, the defense picks players up at the 3-point line and not before.

People talk about Duncan as Mr. Fundamental. True. But watch someone like Kobe sometime and his footwork down low as he operates, or as he toys with a defender with a jab step, then an up and under. It's as fundamentally sound as anyone who's ever played. And other than that, what does fundamentals mean? There are more great ballhandlers today than ever before. People talk about shooting, but how many NBA players can you leave wide open and not expect to pay? Defense is much more intense now than it used to be, and guys are shooting against 6-7 wing players with long wingspans. Isn't defense an important fundamental? As Zag says, what are these supposed fundamentals players don't have? the ability to execute a bounce pass?

As for the marketing, with basketball I think the individual is always going to get more attention simply because there's only five out there at a time, and a dominant player can transform a team from an also-ran to a contender. That's not like the other sports. Was the NBA supposed to downplay how good Jordan was and instead praise the rebounding of Horace Grant? I don't think that's very realistic. And the college game isn't as popular as it used to be. Why? Because people don't identify with the great individual players anymore, because they're not there. You can say it's about the team, but the programs are still the same: Duke, Carolina, Connecticut, Kentucky, etc. But it's not as popular because people don't know the great players that used to come out of the college game. Dominant personalities and players are going to be more prevalent in basketball than the faceless NFL.

This weekend I might pop in the 1985 Finals DVD, and I'll love watching the intensity and talent of Bird, Magic, Worthy, Kareem and McHale. But I'm also not stuck back then, and I'll also enjoy watching the T-Wolves and Al Jefferson (another high school player, FYI) go against maybe the best team in the NBA in the Lakers, which is led by two high school draftees, and a Euro.

 

Thank you!

The last couple of posts show a nostalgia for the NBA does not necessarily equal reality. For everyone who wants 1984 Celts-Lakers, pop in a Warriors-Clippers game from that year. Notice the NBA doesn't play THOSE games on NBA TV or ESPN Classic. The players are SO much more skilled now. Sure, they may struggle on the open 17-footer coming off a screen but most are so good they put themselves in position where they don't need to shoot that 'white boy shot'.

We are seeing Jordan's effect in today's basketball. Many players have "a full toolbox" of skills. Big guys can shoot outside, little guys can drive and finish. Here is where the proof is -- high school. The kids are so much more athletic than what I saw 20 years ago when I played. I'm still able to play in pick-up games with kids in their late teens every so often...they have so many skills now, especially on defense, ball anticipation and ball handling. It's not JUST because I'm older now. They're good.

 

Not only that, the game has become much more of a chess match as opposed to years past.  The guys many in here state who can't shoot are primarily on the court for defensive purposes.  In the past, those players were a rarity, now they're at the disposal of almost every coach in the league not named D'Antoni.  In the 80's, playing time was based purely on ones offensive productivity.  I think it's unfair that today's players are criticized for not hitting open shots when there's a huge difference between being guarded by Kelly Tripuka and Bruce Bowen.

 

I suppose ... but that "next big thing" will always be there ... LeBron is still a young'un ... Kevin Durant just turned 20 ... Derrick Rose has the chance to be the best player to grace Chicago since Jordan.

The NBA ain't hurting.

As for the "fundamentals" comment ... I'm trying to remember what I said, or what you think I said. I believe the only time I used the word was in a positive since, in reference to Tim Duncan.

 

You're right about those players, but the problem is that the league has to continue reinventing itself almost every year, based on the changing faces of the league's top players rather than the placing the fans focus on the unchanging face of team allegiance.  That's the biggest problem this league faces.

 

A valid point. At some point the league's personnel priorities changed and it began valuing defensive skills above offensive. Today's league will make room for a great defender with shitty offensive skills long before it will a great shooter who can't guard anybody.

That didn't used to be the case. For example, take a look at rosters from the 70s to mid-80s and you'll see a small forward position full of unathletic (by today's standards) scorers in the 6'5" to 6'6" range like Bill Bradley, Dantley, Tripucka, Wilkes, Havlicek, Aguirre, etc. Yeah, those guys had tremendous offensive skills in terms of shooting, passing and scoring ability, but I doubt they'd even see the court in today's NBA because they wouldn't be able to guard anyone. Hell, they wouldn't even have a position today--too small for the frontcourt, too slow for the backcourt--there'd be no place for em.

Old timers that talk up those guys seem to forget about the defensive end of the court. It's true a lot of those guys might've been better shooters and passers than most of today's players, but not by nearly the margin in which they lag behind today's guys physically, athletically and defensively.