The media's creation of 'the post modern era'

This is a pretty good read I found posted on another site.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/03/15/different-eras-in-nba/index.html#?ls=iref:nbahpt1

Every generation wants to believe it personally witnessed the greatest basketball ever. That's the main reason why there are so many attempts to denigrate or dismiss or distort history. I've lived with it for well over half a century.

Sam

There are indeed 2 generations in NBA basketball, with the dividing point being in the late 70's. Aschburner is just another "Old Timer" clinging to the past.
swish

More of today's game is played above the rim with isolations, clear outs, and one on one, make a play, or create your own shot-Prior to the late 70's with the exception of players like Gus Johnson, Connie Hawkins, and Earl Monroe (his Baltimore days) it was more team oriented: pass, cut, picks, weaves, move without the ball. Strategy was used to help shooters get open looks. Celtics of today, when they don't lapse into, "hero ball" as Doc calls it still pretty much hold to that. Players like: Bryant, Wade, & James are me first, make sure I get mine first. Celtic teams of the late 50's, 60's, and Knicks teams of the late 60's, early 70's were a thing of beauty to behold. Team concept was revived in the WNBA's Houston Comet dynasty of the late 90's with Cynthia Cooper, Tina Thompson, the late Kim Perrott, Janeth Arcain, Sheryl Swoopes, and Tammy Jackson. Five players: one mind, one ball, one goal!-MD

MDCelticsFan wrote:More of today's game is played above the rim with isolations, clear outs, and one on one, make a play, or create your own shot-Prior to the late 70's with the exception of players like Gus Johnson, Connie Hawkins, and Earl Monroe (his Baltimore days) it was more team oriented: pass, cut, picks, weaves, move without the ball. Strategy was used to help shooters get open looks. Celtics of today, when they don't lapse into, "hero ball" as Doc calls it still pretty much hold to that. Players like: Bryant, Wade, & James are me first, make sure I get mine first. Celtic teams of the late 50's, 60's, and Knicks teams of the late 60's, early 70's were a thing of beauty to behold. Team concept was revived in the WNBA's Houston Comet dynasty of the late 90's with Cynthia Cooper, Tina Thompson, the late Kim Perrott, Janeth Arcain, Sheryl Swoopes, and Tammy Jackson. Five players: one mind, one ball, one goal!-MD

Talking about the Celtics of the late 50's and 60's and the Knicks of the late 60's and early 70's, you can add Portland in '77 & '78 (until Walton got hurt that year when they had a record of 50-10) to that list. What an incredible selfless team that was to watch. I'll never forget Game 3 of the '77 Finals when the series shifted back to Portland (and everyone was writing off the Blazers) when Philly with Dr. J and all their other me-first players got behind 22-4 in the first several minutes, at one point trailed 126-85 (at the time the biggest Finals deficit in history) and proceeded to lose 4 straight games to that team. That team was a thing of beauty for a couple of years.

Thanks for the link.

I'm sure many of us here appreciate what Kevin Love did during his streak but thought that the fuss about it being a "record" was misplaced considering the streaks put up by Wilt and others. (ESPN seemed to be particularly egregious in running with that misperception.) It's true that the game is played at a different pace, with different rims, than it was years ago, but that has been a gradual change. The only dividing line between NBA eras that makes any sense to me is the introduction of the shot clock.

On the bright side, Kevin Love's streak has shed a little light on the achievements of those "pre-modern" players. Unless the game changes, there are records that will never be broken; I've always thought rebounding records in particular are out of reach, more than, say, Wilt's 100 points in a game. But I'm fine with giving a nod of appreciation to Kevin Love's streak if it provides an opportunity to acknowledge those great players from years ago.

Outside

'76-'77 Blazers deserve to be is the "Selfless" category- Hollins, Twardzik. Lucas, Groce, and of course Walton, the best passing Center there was. Fitz Dixon, Sixers owner at the time, must have chewed up a case of Rolaids during that game. Steve- Your memory is sharp for that game.-MD!

Isn't it about winning rather than style of play?
swish

swish wrote:Isn't it about winning rather than style of play?
swish

The simplistic answer is "yes," but for me, it's more nuanced than that. I happen to believe that team basketball (as opposed to isolation basketball) is the best way to play and the way the game was meant to be played. So I don't just celebrate winning; in particular, I celebrate winning with selfless, team basketball, and that Blazers team is a great example of that. I also believe the game should be played with grit, fortitude, and sportsmanship, and the paragon of that for me has always been John Wooden and his Pyramid of Success. Considering that aspect of it, I don't take particular joy in a team like the Pistons, who won playing team ball but did it with McNasty and McFilthy.

Most teams don't win. In the NBA, only one in 32 does. In youth leagues, maybe one in eight or one in 12 does, and even if you win your league, you move on to district, section, region, and maybe even state playoffs where only one in an ever larger pool of teams wins. So it was rare for one of the teams I played on or coached to win at one of those levels, but I considered the team a success if they played team ball and played with grit, fortitude, and sportsmanship. I've been on a team that won the county championship (we lost in the state playoffs), but I also have exceptionally fond memories of a team I coached that came in third in our league but played the right way and achieved more than they should have considering their talent.

As far as the NBA goes, I would appreciate the Celtics titles during the Russell years regardless, but my appreciation is much, much deeper because of the way they played. Of course, the way they played led to the titles, but if they were less talented, if the leprechaun wasn't on their side as much, they may not have won some of those titles, but I would still appreciate the way they played.

So now that I think about it, no, it isn't just about winning.

Outside

Outside
Thanks for your opinion which is well thought out but I differ with your assessment as to how the game was meant to be played. I don't think that there is a"written in stone" way to play the game and like in the non- sports world things change over the years. Some you like--- some you don't..Its all about opinions. As for selflessness. I believe it is just as much in evidence on winning teams that are dominated by one or two "Ball Hogs" such as Jordan and Bryant. Praise be to their team-mates who sacrificed for the good of the team. For them it was also about the team.

swish

Due to my age, I am not one that can compare the NBA from years ago to now.

If someone in the NBA has superior talent and they shoot more then other players, why are they called selfish or ball hogs? If it wasn't for Jordan and Bryant, how many rings would their teammates have?
In no other sport are the best individual players branded as ball hogs as they are in the NBA. Does anyone consider Alex Ovechkin a puck hog because he takes a lot of shots and scores a lot? Are any NFL players viewed as selfish for wanting the ball?

Outside Swish

Interesting debat. Style substance.....ect

In team sports 1 great player can make a huge difference and in hoops where the one player represents 20% or the team on the floor.

To me there has always been a "correct" way to play the game, suffice to say if you have a good open look within your range take the shot, if a teamate has a better shot and you can get him the ball you pass it. Sort of a simple concept but if run within the rough confines of a "play" it can be fluid and beautiful.

Still love the relentless moving without the ball that Havlicek did, and that Ray Allen does today. Only one player of 5 can have the ball at any one time. The other players should be doing something and that is what I love to see, picks off the ball that that lead to openings and usually a good chance to score.

Being able to have seen some of the 60's thru now makes me appricate more just how the game was and should be played today IMHO.

beat

Outside wrote:Thanks for the link.

I'm sure many of us here appreciate what Kevin Love did during his streak but thought that the fuss about it being a "record" was misplaced considering the streaks put up by Wilt and others. (ESPN seemed to be particularly egregious in running with that misperception.) It's true that the game is played at a different pace, with different rims, than it was years ago, but that has been a gradual change. The only dividing line between NBA eras that makes any sense to me is the introduction of the shot clock.

On the bright side, Kevin Love's streak has shed a little light on the achievements of those "pre-modern" players. Unless the game changes, there are records that will never be broken; I've always thought rebounding records in particular are out of reach, more than, say, Wilt's 100 points in a game. But I'm fine with giving a nod of appreciation to Kevin Love's streak if it provides an opportunity to acknowledge those great players from years ago.

Outside

outside
Actually the rebound numbers for the 50's & 60's need to be adjusted before comparing them with the numbers of the last 10 years. Because Russ and Wilt played so many minutes it requires adjusting their rebounds to the number based on 36 minutes per game. But the main reason for the high rebounds is the fact that there were so many more missed shots (resulting in more rebs.) in those days. I find that the best way to compare the Generations is to compare the players rebound average for the year against the combined average of the league and his team. The results give a vastly different view of the difference between the Generations.
swish

tjmakz wrote:Due to my age, I am not one that can compare the NBA from years ago to now.

If someone in the NBA has superior talent and they shoot more then other players, why are they called selfish or ball hogs? If it wasn't for Jordan and Bryant, how many rings would their teammates have?
In no other sport are the best individual players branded as ball hogs as they are in the NBA. Does anyone consider Alex Ovechkin a puck hog because he takes a lot of shots and scores a lot? Are any NFL players viewed as selfish for wanting the ball?

tjmakz
I used the term "Ball Hog" just to accentuate my point that being "Mister team" is not neccessarily bad. Im with you on this one.
swish

2 other teams worth mentioning that played good team ball were the 80's era Nuggets. Yeah they didn't win much with Doug Moe's system but to be able to score at such a high rate consistently it took a team effort and a willingness to share the ball.

The other being this decade's Pistons team which was an annomally as they were extremely successful without a top 10 player in the league on the team but rather a collection of very good players such as Billups, Rip Hamilton, Sheed, Ben Wallace and Tayshaun Prince who all played to win, not for stats.

For some reason, I've never wanted to reveal it, but James Naismith and I were good friends. He wanted to be called by the name "Jim" or even "Jimmy," but my group of friends always called him "Punk" because of his penchant for going around and mugging little girls.

Punk and I used to eat lunch together at the local dine. It was the forerunner of the diner, but they hadn't yet invented the letter "r" at that time.

Anyway, one day, Punk said he had invented a new game. I immediately asked the natural question. "How many couples?" When he responded "Five guys," I burst out laughing at such a dumb idea. What did he want the odd man out to do while his partner and two other couple were playing? Was he supposed to go pull some salt water taffy or something?

Then Punk revealed that the game involved throwing this big ball into a peach basket. I couldn't help but respond, "What'll happen to the peaches, Punk? This is the stupidest game I ever heard of. Five guys standing around and ramming this beach ball down into a bunch of peaches.

It was then that he laid the real kicker on me. "The peach basket will be nailed about 10 feet high on a wall in this big room. And the five guys will eat the peaches beforehand, so the basket will be empty." I ordered another raspberry lime ricky and pondered that one while wondering about the the outhouse implications of eating all those peaches.

But I persevered. "So they have to throw the ball up into the basket? Well, first of all, who's gonna shinny up there and get the ball if it goes in the basket? Also why does it take five guys? Are they going to get on each others' shoulders or something? One guy could do it all alone."

Punk he was really a know-it-all bastard. Thought he had answers for everything. "We'll nail the basked under a balcony. I know a little girl who's willing to be suspended by a rope from the balcony to retrieve the ball. We may need more than one little girl because the ball could conceivably go in the basket as much as four or five times a game, and she could tire out. Also, I haven't figured out what will happen if the rope breaks and she falls through the basket. We may have to have extra baskets on hand just in case."

"But what about my other question, Punk? Why five guys? Why not just one?" And his answer was the reason I posted on this thread. "Because part of the excitement of the game will be when the five guys keep moving the ball around as a team while another team of five guys tries to get it away from them. If I'd been idiotic enough, I could have just pitted one guy against another. But that would be boring, boring, boring, boring, boring. The game has to have some excitement and artistic beauty or it will never sell. That's the whole idea of having a team, so they have to interact and depend on one another."

"Punk, you're going to have plenty of trouble selling that game as it is. But why will it be exciting if these guys just hand the ball to each other or throw it to each other? That can get pretty boring too."

"Well, Sam, they also can dribble......."

He never finished the sentence. I suddenly remembered that I had to go and change the baby's diapers, so I bolted for home.

Unfortunately, I moved away soon afterwards and never got to hear the end of Punk's story. But, to this very day, I have this extreme aversion to peaches.

Sam