|
Post by greatgates1 on Jul 13, 2010 16:38:43 GMT -5
Wonderful posts but i don't see bloat and dilution. I see as much talent as ever. i remember some of those teams during Clyde's early years. Just a collection of bums. There may have been some greater teams but that is a salary cap (level the field) residual. get tapes of the Syracuse natiionals. The rims would bury those hacks. there are skills, as you all accurately mentioned, that are not comparable to those of past eras (pull up jumper being an excellent example) but there are new skills that were lacking in the past. No way does earl get to take 12 dribbles and spin 3 times and pump twice without being doubled and the weakside being zoned. Old ball was 5 1 on 1 games. Knicks Bullets was 5 individual matchups with a cumulative score. No one rotated except bill russell. There may be only six or eight teams worth watching but for many decades there were only two or three.
|
|
|
Post by dk7th on Jul 13, 2010 21:35:45 GMT -5
great gates:
name them please. i'm curious to see this list. ha ha
oh HO! so you're testing people, are you? back in the day there was the hand check, palming/carrying and traveling were closely called. if you look at that footage you'll also notice that guards like mr. frazier and the pearl utilized a whole lot more spin moves on the perimeter to wriggle free. i don't see that type of play anymore. the double-teams with zoning weakside is a necessary-- and necessarily evil adaptation-- to an ill-conceived and evil freedom, namely the allowing of players to palm/carry, and travel and the simultaneous outlawing of the hand check.
the issue of the same ratio of great teams is an interesting observation but you will have to show me the correlation to the "more players than ever that are just as good" approach you took. i don't think there is one. i see a completely different game out there-- one that has been altered (and some would say for the worse) by the changes in the rules surrounding palming, carrying, traveling, flopping, moving picks, the abolishment of the hand check rule.
sorry to sound like a broken rekkid but you should have a look at what gary wrote in a thread he started.
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Jul 13, 2010 23:08:23 GMT -5
Wonderful posts but i don't see bloat and dilution. I see as much talent as ever. i remember some of those teams during Clyde's early years. Just a collection of bums. There may have been some greater teams but that is a salary cap (level the field) residual. get tapes of the Syracuse natiionals. The rims would bury those hacks. there are skills, as you all accurately mentioned, that are not comparable to those of past eras (pull up jumper being an excellent example) but there are new skills that were lacking in the past. No way does earl get to take 12 dribbles and spin 3 times and pump twice without being doubled and the weakside being zoned. Old ball was 5 1 on 1 games. Knicks Bullets was 5 individual matchups with a cumulative score. No one rotated except bill russell. There may be only six or eight teams worth watching but for many decades there were only two or three. There were some great teams when Clyde played but there was another factor nobody has mentioned yet. The ABA. First they enticed NBA stars like Rick Barry, Billy Cunningham, Zelmo Beatty and Joe Caldwell to join. When they left teams like San Francisco, the 76ers and Atlanta were hurt bad and they had good components on those teams too. Nate Thurmond, Jeff Mullins and Al Attles for example? How about the Hawks. They lost their two best players and the 76ers lost their best player and they still had Luke Jackson and Hal Greer. Without them there are probably 20 additional star players and an equal number of solid role players who could have been added to those 12 NBA teams. Stars like Dr. J, Artis Gilmore, Moses Malone, David Thompson, Dan Issel, George McGinnis, Charlie Scott, Spencer Haywood, Mel Daniels, George Gervin, Billy Knight, Ron Boone, Marvin Barnes, Maurice Lucas, Mack Calvin, Willie Wise, Ralph Simpson not to mention Roger Brown and Connie Hawkins who were special cases. Great role players like Bobby Jones, Billy Pautlz, John Brisker, Warren Jabali, Jim McDaniels, Glen Combs, Wendell Ladner, Larry Kenon, Jim McDaniels, Donnie Freeman, Freddie Lewis, Bob Netolicky, James Silas, Swen Nater, John Williamson, Brian Taylor, Caldwell Jones, Don Buse, Byron Beck, and Len Elmore. There is almost 40 players. The talent wasn't all that diluted it just wasn't concentrated. As for basic skills I have long lamented the lack of them nowadays. We have better athletes but the nuts and bolts of basketball are things like defense, blocking out on rebounding, going over screens, etc., etc. The pull up jumper and the hook shot are two offensive moves that could benefit a lot of players and they are super tough to stop when executed correctly. BTW, the 69-70 Knicks won on teamwork. Their passing and willingness to work together at both ends of the floor is what made them special. The ABA was all one on one though and frankly I loved it.
|
|
|
Post by babylon5 on Jul 13, 2010 23:14:50 GMT -5
irish, It was all one on one, and above the rim. Most people never saw Dr.J in the ABA.....he was so much better in the ABA...and he was great in the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Jul 14, 2010 0:52:22 GMT -5
irish, It was all one on one, and above the rim. Most people never saw Dr.J in the ABA.....he was so much better in the ABA...and he was great in the NBA. I loved those days... The Knicks on WOR Channel 9 and the Nets on Channel 11 WPIX. A little known fact about me was that my favorite basketball player for a time, even more than Clyde, was Net guard John Roche because he played for South Carolina and I was born there. His coach was NYC native Frank McGuire and they had some excellent teams in the late 60's and early 70's including my favorite beer guzzlin' Knick Draft Choice, Tom "I'll play another if you get me a keg" Riker. As for the ABA it was straight street basketball and it was great! It was like going to the Rucker Tournament only inside.
|
|
|
Post by kgooglog on Jul 14, 2010 8:57:26 GMT -5
Dk's post speaks to my main complaint, and unfortunately if I come off sounding like a father lecturing to his child about "the good old days" when men were men and the women were too, so be it. Today's NBA is so diluted and those of us who were around in the 60s and 70s can speak to the lack of talent that truly does affect the 30 or so teams that $tern proudly calls his own, but I cannot buy into the sales pitch that this is currently a better sport than it was pre-$tern.
If I can even name 40 players league-wide that hold the tenets of team-work, the importance of winning, and the respect they had for their team, it would pale in comparison to the number of pioneering players whose gritty play, desire to win games, and the stars that held the fan in such high regard, the disparity would make even younger fans yearn to watch the product which was around when we were kids. Even the importance that the fan carried, doesn;t seem to bear any weight on a player's desire to remain loyal to the team who drafted him.
Spencer Haywood's first year in the ABA saw him post a 30 PPG/20 RPG game average, even average NBA teams shot a .490 team FG%, and games were filled with such energy, that even the current superior conditioning, freakish G-D-given athletic abilities of individual players, and the universal popularity of the present athlete, does not begin to even make up what I have seen as an overall deterioration of the sport since $tern took over the reins.
There more assistant coaches on some teams 'benches than active players, such control over a team's right to pay a player what they want to (Cap Constraints, which are, IMHO, the bane of the NBA) and a poverty of even the most basic basketball skills in so-called 'elite' players that these athletes cannot even be involved in the game during the most critical moments--those times when a game might be decided on a player's ability to hit an unencumbered 15 foot shot with even a 75% accuracy rate.
I suppose I will always be mocked by some folks that have every right to say "get with the times." Unfortunately, I am still someone who is doggedly stubborn when it comes to doing what is in vogue or even what is deemed a necessity by the majority, and, in many ways, despite my acceptance of the computer, I am able to still live a life without a cell phone, I-Pods, and prefer good ole fashion romance to a roll in the hay.
I shall continue to spew out my out-dated theories, opinions, and Kool-Aid beliefs about the Knicks and truly believe in what some have deemed "delusional" thoughts on where I see the Knicks heading in the next year or two. I am glad that I am not even banned from your lives, and this is what makes the one invention--the computer--one which I love, since it allows me to communicate with all of you about a sport which we all seem to love.
This is what makes the game extremely different than it was from the time I first began following the sport. While $tern is often heralded as the best commissioner of a major sport, he is the one I hold completely responsible for prostituting the NBA into the watered-down sludge which I have a difficult time even watching, although my Knick fandom is something that keeps my cable subsription ongoing. No matter that the dillution afflicts my own team as well, I, as well as my long-suffering comrades, will continue to watch the games until we can no longer see.
I grew up watching a game that saw fan loyalty at its peak, and there never would have been events such as "The Decision" put on a major sports network (of course, in 1968, it wasn't that easy to even catch an away Knicks game on television, unless your Rabbit years did get WOR.) We relied on the radio to even get a flavor of other teams players and if you had a set that could catch the old Buffalo Braves games when they played a non-Knick team, it was such a treat. When Cable TV came into being, Knick home games started being televised and it was a nightly affair of the wildest emotional swings of any television I remember. Baseball was our second love, as a family, and my brother and I would nearly have bloodbaths over who was better back in the early 70s--His Mets or My Yanks. I suppose that my point is that growing up in a sports oriented family, truly brought the sense of family which I felt teams like the title and non-title Knicks believed they were, too.
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Jul 14, 2010 9:29:28 GMT -5
Why I Hate David Stern.... He's as arrogant as any star player. The reason he is pissed at LeBron's "The Decision" is because he didn't think of it first. For him. I hate that he is trying to shoehorn the NBA and it's players into what he views as a marketable commodity. It's not the game but how a player dressed that seems to matter most to him. It's not all ball all the time it's Stern all the time. I hate that players breathe on each other and risk a foul. We may lament poor defense but even the most cynical of us can see that the way the game is regulated today even average defense is an accomplishment. A player who flopped in the '70's would get trampled by the other team, ignored by his own, yelled at by his coach and laughed at by the refs. Today it's an art form thanks to Stern. I hate the perception that Stern, who never played the game on a team, "resurrected" the game during his tenure when in fact Michael Jordan was the true "savior". Baseball is enjoying a terrific resurgence in popularity and I can assure everyone here it isn't because of Bud Selig. I hate Stern's dogmatic approach. When Artest went bat shit in Detroit he deserved to be suspended as well as others who participated but the punishment did not fit the crime and Stern personally cost the Indiana Pacers a chance at the NBA title at a time when they did have a legitimate chance. His "one step over the line" suspensions of players not involved in fights ticks me off too. Stern likes to exercise his power and not for the good of the game but to show he has that power. Just watch next summer if you don't believe me. Stern's obsession with making the NBA global has teams traveling all over the world which is neither here not there but his dream of a worldwide NBA is ridiculous. If Stern left it that teams play some overseas games during exhibition, which is great for exposure to foreign players who may end up in the NBA, that would be fine though with the Internet and global communications how much do we have to sell the NBA in person? Instead Stern wants to plant his flag in foreign lands. The current basketball situation overseas works great for Europe and the Far East so why mess with it? Because he can. I don't think he wants the Knicks playing Real Madrid or Benetton Treviso in one league as much as he wants them playing each other in HIS league. Apparently America (and Canada) are not big enough for Stern's ambitions. Stern has done some good things. The WNBA is one. The work the NBA has done for charities is amazing and really stands as a sterling example for other sports and leagues. Stern has raised TV and product revenue though again, that's the players and not Stern. He gets credit because he recognizes marketable commodities. I'd like to get a commissioner that Shakespeare would approve and he would not approve of Stern.
|
|
|
Post by babylon5 on Jul 14, 2010 9:59:13 GMT -5
irish, I loved when you waxed poetic about the ABA. What a memory you have....I had forgotten some of the names of the players. I loved two that you didn't list: Darnell "Dr.Dunk" Hillman and Charlie Scott.
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Jul 14, 2010 10:09:16 GMT -5
irish, I loved when you waxed poetic about the ABA. What a memory you have....I had forgotten some of the names of the players. I loved two that you didn't list: Darnell "Dr.Dunk" Hillman and Charlie Scott. I listed Charlie Scott but forgot completely about Darnell Hillman which is amazing since I mentioned Bob Netolicky. I cheated on the list of players a little because I have "Loose Balls" the story of the ABA by Terry Pluto. Great book. Here's a link for it on Amazon since you are a fan of that wild, crazy league. www.amazon.com/Loose-Balls-American-Basketball-Association/dp/0671673904If you get it the stories on John Brisker, Wendell Ladner and Marvin Barnes alone are worth the price.
|
|
|
Post by ReneNYG1 on Jul 17, 2010 15:15:32 GMT -5
Gates you brought back memories that yes there where bums back then too.I hate Stern for the Larry Johnson ruling where he didn't give a injury exception,plus his overhand est control when he should of had over refs instead of players and coaches. and everything Bill said.
|
|