Does the NBA stink?

[Pringle]

TP, they play GREAT defense in the NBA.

 

[Tom Petty]

TP, they play GREAT defense in the NBA.

what's the punchline?

 

[Pringle]

So which is it? They don't score enough and the game is too slow? Or they play no defense? Because I constantly hear both.

 

[Tom Petty]

So which is it? They don't score enough and the game is too slow? Or they play no defense? Because I constantly hear both.

i simply said nba players can't shoot and are lazy on defense, hence, ****ty defense.

 

[The Big Ragu]

A lot of what you're all saying is true. Which makes me wonder... It should still be possible to assemble an NBA-quality team of 12 players willing to bust their ass on defense and buy into a motion offense, with a ton of backdoor cuts and a lot of ball movement, instead of isolations or simple clear outs and pick and rolls. You could fast break when it's there and settle into a half-court offense with the ball swinging looking for the open cut; even with the shot clock, which forces a shot, it would be way different than anything you see in the NBA.

So let's say instead of one all-star quality scorer and a bunch of supporting players of various talent levels, you got together a rotation of eight B to B+ players, with solid fundamentals, running a Red Holtzman type of offense. How do you think that team would do in today's NBA?

 

[Tom Petty]

A lot of what you're all saying is true. Which makes me wonder... It should still be possible to assemble an NBA-quality team of 12 players willing to bust their ass on defense and buy into a motion offense, with a ton of backdoor cuts and a lot of ball movement, instead of isolations or simple clear outs and pick and rolls. You could fast break when it's there and settle into a half-court offense with the ball swinging looking for the open cut; even with the shot clock, which forces a shot, it would be way different than anything you see in the NBA.

So let's say instead of one all-star quality scorer and a bunch of supporting players of various talent levels, you got together a rotation of eight B to B+ players, with solid fundamentals, running a Red Holtzman type of offense. How do you think that team would do in today's NBA?

ragu - don't know how it'd do in the nba, but see olympics.

 

[thebiglead]

Enjoy the NBA greatly. Love college hoops, too. Perhaps the American public struggles to identify with the NBA because at 6-foot-9, Tracy McGrady is doing things the average person can't. Ditto for Kobe and Lebron. To see Dwight Howard last night leap up and paste a sticker near the top of the backboard ... to me, that's just unreal.

This will sound supremely losery, but if given the choice of selecting one athletic feat to accomplish ... it would be to dunk a basketball. I play in a rec league in NYC, and as a guy who isn't quite 6-feet, I long for the day to come down on a 3-on-1 break and to just rise up and dunk in the ball in some guy's face with authority. I know - it's just two points, but from a psychological standpoint, it's much more.

In the neighborhood, anyone can score a goal in soccer or score a touchdown or hit a home run or get a hole in one. Not true for dunking.

 

[Tom Petty]

This will sound supremely losery, but if given the choice of selecting one athletic feat to accomplish ... it would be to dunk a basketball.

which, precisely is the reason why the nba sucks, and why we get our asses kicked overseas.

 

[BTExpress]

The NBA is like the SI swimsuit issue. It hasn't changed for the worse. YOU have changed. What thrilled you as a wide-eyed kid simply doesn't thrill you as a jaded adult. So you rip on it.

Bob Cousy never shot 40 percent from the field in ANY of his 14 seasons. He makes Allen Iverson look like a great shooter. Yet "Cooz" is supposed to represent the great era of fundamentally sound basketball? Please.

The 70s were so great? Are you telling me the champion Sonics of Jack Sikma & Co. would really be able to compete against today's Spurs, Suns or Mavs?

Arguably the greatest basketball player in the 70s (Julius Erving) didn't even play in the NBA until he was past his prime. Ditto for about three dozen other stars (Artis Gilmore, George McGinnis etc.) The ABA did more to dilute the talent in the NBA in the early 70s than expansion ever could do today.

Yes, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s had great teams . . . built because of the complete ineptitude of owners of the Cavaliers, Jazz and Warriors, who should have had the likes of Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kevin McHale on their teams but let them get away in ridiculously dumb draft trades. Yes, it was a golden decade . . . if you were one of the 2-3 teams with any chance of actually winning a title.

It isn't expansion that has diluted the talent. It's smarter ownership and the absence of people like Ted Stepien that have created a little more balance in the competition. Plus, whatever talent has been "diluted" by expansion has been more than made up for in the imports of foreign players.

 

[Pringle]

A lot of what you're all saying is true. Which makes me wonder... It should still be possible to assemble an NBA-quality team of 12 players willing to bust their ass on defense and buy into a motion offense, with a ton of backdoor cuts and a lot of ball movement, instead of isolations or simple clear outs and pick and rolls. You could fast break when it's there and settle into a half-court offense with the ball swinging looking for the open cut; even with the shot clock, which forces a shot, it would be way different than anything you see in the NBA.

So let's say instead of one all-star quality scorer and a bunch of supporting players of various talent levels, you got together a rotation of eight B to B+ players, with solid fundamentals, running a Red Holtzman type of offense. How do you think that team would do in today's NBA?

You'd have as much chance of getting an NBA-caliber player to buy into a "motion offense" as you would of **** Cheney disavowing capitalism and urging a move towards a socialist system. Because that's that NBA players would essentially see that as - socialist offensive basketball. (Maybe Adam Morrison and Steve Nash would like it).

As far as the team of B to B+ players playing team basketball and 24 solid seconds of defense every time down - Detroit's title team is a great example. The current Chicago Bulls are, too, though without a big man who can score, they're doomed to a first- or second-round exit.

 

[thebiglead]

This will sound supremely losery, but if given the choice of selecting one athletic feat to accomplish ... it would be to dunk a basketball.

which, precisely is the reason why the nba sucks, and why we get our asses kicked overseas.

I'll agree that why we are losing in international competition ... but I respectfully disagree with the first portion of your statement.

I suppose the best way to judge which sports 'suck' is probably through TV ratings, but then the NHL, MLB, and NBA would all 'suck' since ratings for all three sports have been terrible. And conversly, NASCAR would be at the top.

 

[Boobie Miles]

if the athletes are "better" why do they suck so badly at playing defense and shooting? seems as though those are a coupla distinctions of being an "athlete" and playing basketball.

jumping sports, but the point's still the same: is vick a better athlete than montana?

Vick is ten times the better athlete, and Montana is a hundred times the better QB. There's a difference, IMO.

 

[Tom Petty]

The NBA is like the SI swimsuit issue. It hasn't changed for the worse. YOU have changed. What thrilled you as a wide-eyed kid simply doesn't thrill you as a jaded adult. So you rip on it.

Bob Cousy never shot 40 percent from the field in ANY of his 14 seasons. He makes Allen Iverson look like a great shooter. Yet "Cooz" is supposed to represent the great era of fundamentally sound basketball? Please.

The 70s were so great? Are you telling me the champion Sonics of Jack Sikma & Co. would really be able to compete against today's Spurs, Suns or Mavs?

Arguably the greatest basketball player in the 70s (Julius Erving) didn't even play in the NBA until he was past his prime. Ditto for about three dozen other stars (Artis Gilmore, George McGinnis etc.) The ABA did more to dilute the talent in the NBA in the early 70s than expansion ever could do today.

Yes, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s had great teams . . . built because of the complete ineptitude of owners of the Cavaliers, Jazz and Warriors, who should have had the likes of Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kevin McHale on their teams but let them get away in ridiculously dumb draft trades. Yes, it was a golden decade . . . if you were one of the 2-3 teams with any chance of actually winning a title.

It isn't expansion that has diluted the talent. It's smarter ownership and the absence of people like Ted Stepien that have created a little more balance in the competition. Plus, whatever talent has been "diluted" by expansion has been more than made up for in the imports of foreign players.

james, melo, iverson ... how's that medal turning out for them?

 

[Tom Petty]

if the athletes are "better" why do they suck so badly at playing defense and shooting? seems as though those are a coupla distinctions of being an "athlete" and playing basketball.

jumping sports, but the point's still the same: is vick a better athlete than montana?

Vick is ten times the better athlete, and Montana is a hundred times the better QB. There's a difference, IMO.

boobie, (gonna be sarcastic, but not in an assholeish-type of way) i didn't know quarterbacks weren't athletes.

 

[Starman]

The reason we lose in international basketball is not because all the players want to dunk -- it's because we DON'T DUNK ENOUGH. (And, we don't guard the 3. :) We milk the clock, walk the ball up court, slow down the pace of the games, and intentionally **** all our advantages in speed and athletic ability right out the window, because it's not the "right way to play." We don't need to play that helter-skelter ghetto-ball. : :

Several generations of coaches, players and fans have been raised on the Bible of Norman Dale, Bobby Knight, and think it's some kind of freaking sin to come down and take a shot. Now, coaches go into a conniption fit if anybody, ever, takes a shot with more than 10 seconds on the shot clock.

That's the ONE THING you notice when watching old games on video -- the number of times they would come down, stop and pop. Watch films of the Russell Celtics -- they rarely took more than 10 seconds to take a shot. Hardly ever. (The Russell Celtics also averaged 115-120 ppg a few seasons.) FG attempts per game are down about 20 percent from the mid-80s.

"Defense" is incomparably better (or, more effective) in today's basketball than it was in the 1980s and 1970s, because clutch-and-grab sumo wrestling has been de facto legalized by a sport-wide implicit conspiracy of referees, who allow players to grab and tackle to an extent never dreamed of years ago. (The influence of the Bad Boy Pistons, almost solely responsible for the sport completely going to ****.)

Therefore, 2-point FG percentages have taken a HUGE dump in the last 20 years. In the early-mid-1980s, the NBA -- AS A WHOLE -- shot close to 50 percent for a few years. For the past decade, until a recent uptick, 2-pt FG percentages in the league overall have been in the low 40s.

The argument that "shooting has gone to hell" is complete crap -- 3-point FG percentages, AND free throw percentages, the two most direct indications of raw shooting ability, have steadily gone up over the years. In the mid 1980s, a FT percentage of .850 would have you contending for the league lead -- now it wouldn't get you in the top 20. (Sure, you have horrible FT shooters like Shaq and Ben Wallace, but those are anomalies. 20 years ago, Rodman was a horrible FT shooter. 35 years ago, it was Wilt.)

Because of the acceptance of sumo-hack defense and the predomination of stall-ball milk-the-clock offense, the sport offensively has devolved into complete sludge, although the influence of teams like Phoenix and Dallas have somewhat reversed this trend somewhat in the last couple of years.

 

[n8wilk]

I'm a huge basketball fan, but never really cared for the NBA. I figured out why when I went to two games this year.

The players are perhaps the best athletes in the world. They're huge, quicker than cat**** and can jump out of the roof. But the fundamentals are absolutely abysmal. There's little if any defense. Or teamwork. Most players don't move well without the ball and few are ever in good defensive positions. The possessions consist of one player milking the clock down until he decides to go one-on-one. And I won't even start on the shooting woes. I'd like to look at free throw percentages over the past 20-30 years.

College players may be limited in many ways, but the team game is much more important. I'll take it over the NBA every time.

 

[Pringle]

I'd like to look at free throw percentages over the past 20-30 years.

Have it at, bro. I can't wait.

Time to dispel some of these myths that have been bred partially by racism (not saying that you're racist. These myths about the NBA are pervasive and ingrained from birth).

 

[Rick Shanley]

I'd like to look at free throw percentages over the past 20-30 years.

Have it at, bro. I can't wait.

Time to dispel some of these myths that have been bred partially by racism (not saying that you're racist. These myths about the NBA are pervasive and ingrained from birth).

I'm not racist, either, but a big reason why I don't watch the NBA is because I can't relate to the culture. For better or worse, it's not the basketball I grew up with -- and I grew up loving Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls.

 

[Chuck~Taylor]

I love the NBA and always will. The thing that the NBA has going for them right now is that there are so many stars. This probably dosn't amuse older people but it's really attractive to the younger demographic.

 

[Starman]

A quick skim of www.basketball reference.com seasonal totals and averages comes up with this:

NBA 2006:
FG-FGA: 2939-6477, .453 (78.9 FGA)
3FG-3FGA: 470-1310, .358
FT-FTA: 1607-2157, .745
PPG: 97.0


NBA 1996:
FG: 3038-6575, .462 (80.1 FGA)
3FG: 483-1316, .367
FT: 1601-2164, .738
PPG: 99.5

NBA 1986:
FG: 3524-7268, .485 (88.6 FGA)
3FG: 77-274, .281
FT: 1877-2482, .756
PPG: 110.2

NBA 1976:
FG: 3448-7521, .458 (91.7 FGA)
3FG: (78-266*, .293) *ABA averages
FT: 1660-2209, .751
PPG: 104.3

NBA 1966:
FG: 3546-8195, .432 (99.9 FGA)
3FG: NA
FT: 2149-2957, .726
PPG: 115.5

NBA 1956 (72 games):
FG: 2544-6580, .386 (91.4 FGA/game)
3FG: NA
FT: 2041-2739, .744
PPG: 99.0

The one glaring unmistakable trend which has been constant over the last 50 years is purely a function of coaching: fewer FG attempts per game.