[maggiethebestdog]

You must have seen the viral video of James harden's great defensive effort in last night's defensive free game at Toronto. He is considered one of the best players in the league. The debate about the Warriors and Curry not even competing with the 80's Celtics, Lakers, 76ers, Cavs, Portland, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix and the Oscar R's days has heated up again.

The NBA is a joke. The talent is null. It is watered down by expansion. Also, the game is now entertainment instead of savage competition. The refs know this as well and call the game accordingly. It is pretty easy to score when nobody tries to guard you, and if they do, they will be called for a foul. This trend started after the Pistons all retired and Jordan ushered in the Entertainment Basketball League.

The Warriors have no inside game. They are not physical. A real team with height, who plays inside outside basketball, would destroy them. It is laughable to even compare the Warriors to these great teams. They play teams with no talent and no defensive effort, like OKC. Harden defense is the norm today. The norm in the 80's was if you had a free look, you ended up on your ass and had to earn the points at the line. Today, everybody parts like the Red Sea and there is an uncontested dunk instead of a collision.

So the Warriors are dominant in a defensive and effortless league with the refs right on board. One of the supposed best in the game, Harden, plays less defense than a 6th grade girl's team. Once again, the league is a joke.

Now, that doesn't mean that some of today's player's, like Curry, couldn't be a great fit and player for an 80's team. Inside out with Curry and height on the block would be a deadly combination. Some other players as well. They would just have to play defense or they wouldn't play.

Finally, in the cartoon era of the NBA, all you need is 2 better players together, surrounded by nobodies, to win a championship. Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq, Shaq/Wade and Lebron/Wade all won titles with scrubs as teammates. The Spurs are the only exception to this rule.

Now look at the 80's teams. They all went 7-8 deep and 6-8 players would have started on any other team. The benches helped win Championships. They would destroy today's teams.

So check out the Harden video, which has gone viral in the sports world. He makes around 20 million a year. Then you can tell me how great the Warriors are.

[astro61200]

Stupid post with nothing to back it up but opinion, thus no way to prove you wrong.

Think what you want, but teams from the 80's wouldn't destroy teams from now.

[maggiethebestdog]

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal???? You can not dispute one of my facts, or as you and Republicans call them, " opinions ".

[astro61200]

After 5 seconds of research, if the 80's were such a defensive era, then why was the lowest average FG% from 78-89(-90) .476 but the best FG% from 95-now was .461?

[astro61200]

Average Points Per Game per Team from 78-89(-90): 109.4
Average Points Per Game per Team from 96-now: 97.5

Average FT attempts per game per team from 78-89(-90): 22.0
Average FT attempts per game per team from 96-now: 18.47

[astro61200]

Not to mention the upward trend of more 3's being shot per game

In 78-79 each team attempted 2.8 3's per game, that number has been at 20+ every year since 2012-2013. So if teams were attempting that many then, the PPG would be even larger.

The games were far different, the 3 was just introduced so most teams weren't built to take advantage of it so you ended up with those "tough" defensive teams you're talking about. Defense was easier as you didn't have to guard so far from the basket.

The claim that the talent level is diluted because of expansion doesn't hold water either, as international players coming over easily makes up for the extra teams.

Teams back in your glory days also turned the ball over far more often (but don't claim it was because of better defense as they only averaged about 1 more steal a game). Blocks have stayed about the same per game, even as teams attempt more 3's, so seems like better defense is being played inside now as they're blocking at the same clip with far less attempts to block.

Also, there were far more fouls called per team back in the 80's than now. Which doesn't really jive with most people claiming that everything is a foul now and teams can't play defense.

So, like I said, stupid post. Though, I was wrong, when I said I couldn't prove it.

Oh, and here is the source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html

[maggiethebestdog]

It's called team basketball and passing the ball. Not being a ball hog and going one on 5 like now. The defense made you find the open man. Also, the number of shots per game was lower because teams wanted quality shots instead of bricking 3 pointers all game. Also, older teams didn't allow 2nd chance points like now. If you know you have only one shot, you make the most of it. Today, 3 or 4 shots on one trip is not unusual because nobody rebounds. Low post shots are a higher % shot. If this is the best you got, I really don't think you are qualified to talk about the subject.

[astro61200]

It's called team basketball and passing the ball. Not being a ball hog and going one on 5 like now. The defense made you find the open man. Also, the number of shots per game was lower because teams wanted quality shots instead of bricking 3 pointers all game. Also, older teams didn't allow 2nd chance points like now. If you know you have only one shot, you make the most of it. Today, 3 or 4 shots on one trip is not unusual because nobody rebounds. Low post shots are a higher % shot. If this is the best you got, I really don't think you are qualified to talk about the subject.

The number of shot attempts per game from 78-89 was higher than from 96-now.. by a lot, actually, 8-9 attempts per game so around 10% more. So that statement is completely wrong.

Offensive Rebound percentage from that era was right around 33%, compared to around 28% from 96-now (and right around 25% over the past 4 seasons). So that point is completely wrong too.

Also, assists per shot attempts made percentage is about the same every year. So the looking for the open shot BS you spout off is wrong too. Assist percentage isn't dropping, they're just lower due to less field goals made. This nullifies your ball hog statement, and actually suggests that defense is better now than it was in the 80's.

[maggiethebestdog]

So those stat's prove something??? Of course stats can be different for different era's. You are seriously telling me that the game wasn't more defensive and effort oriented than today???? See James Harden video. Would any player in the 80's play like that???? Some European players have not made any difference in the style of play or talent. Why do you think the rest of the world has caught up to America in basketball?? Most European players couldn't sniff the NBA in the 80's. The fact they can now is making my point for me. I go by the eye test and my EXTENSIVE high level basketbal background as a player and coach. You can go with the dork stat website which means nothing.

[astro61200]

So those stat's prove something??? Of course stats can be different for different era's. You are seriously telling me that the game wasn't more defensive and effort oriented than today???? See James Harden video. Would any player in the 80's play like that???? Some European players have not made any difference in the style of play or talent. Why do you think the rest of the world has caught up to America in basketball?? Most European players couldn't sniff the NBA in the 80's. The fact they can now is making my point for me. I go by the eye test and my EXTENSIVE high level basketbal background as a player and coach. You can go with the dork stat website which means nothing.

Like I said to start, all you have is an opinion. I provided stats to support every statement I made and debunk each statement you made.

Yes, I am telling you that players in the 80's would, sometimes, give the same defensive effort as James Harden did. The difference is there wasn't 24/7 coverage on it, you didn't have the internet to rewatch it over and over again, and have every person with a keyboard acting like an expert on the matter. Unless you were at the game, or lived locally and watched it on TV, then you didn't see it.

Why do I think that other countries have caught up with the US? Well, first of all, I don't think they've caught up nearly as much as you think. You don't have the best Americans playing on international teams anymore like you did in the 80's. However, the internet has certainly helped other countires get better. Now they have easy access to training videos, they can actually watch the game being played, and so on.

Don't get mad that I proved you completely wrong and hit the nail on the head in my first post (that your statement was all opinion, and stupid).

[maggiethebestdog]

I love it. The NBA isn't, since 95, a more one on one ball hog league than the 80's??? That is ridiculous. Don't hit the guy cutting for a wide open layup, keep the ball and throw up any shot you can. What games are you watching?????? Now, players don't even cut to the basket, they clear out for the ball hog. Your stats mean nothing.

[maggiethebestdog]

All you have proven is that stats are not an accurate way to compare two different era's and that you have never played basketball in your life. You do realize that 50% of the stats you listed prove my point, not yours. Of course you don't. When you know nothing about the game, you don't know how to use the stats to prove a point. Your own stats contradict your stance.

[astro61200]

I love it. The NBA isn't, since 95, a more one on one ball hog league than the 80's??? That is ridiculous. Don't hit the guy cutting for a wide open layup, keep the ball and throw up any shot you can. What games are you watching?????? Now, players don't even cut to the basket, they clear out for the ball hog. Your stats mean nothing.

My stats prove my point, all you are is spouting off is an opinion. You use a small sample size (certain guys who just jack up shots) and interpret the entire league as that. The statistics prove this is incorrect, they aren't biased and they encapsulate the entire league as a whole each year instead of you picking examples out of a small sample size to fit your needs to support your argument.

All you have proven is that stats are not an accurate way to compare two different era's and that you have never played basketball in your life.

As I said, your opinion is wrong and you have nothing to back up your statements. Stats don't lie and you're just in denial. Oh, and I have played plenty of basketball in my life, but even if I hadn't it has no bearing on the NBA in it's current or previous state.

[R.P. McMurphy]

I remember the 80's and still my fave decade for nba . But let's not kid ourselves and get caught up in nostalgia romance to much. Haven't seen this mentioned yet but you have to look at the rules 1st of all. Call it a more pussified rule book if you wish but no doubt it's had a big impact on dictating how gm is played. Same with Nfl you cannot fairly compare defenses from back in the day to this era or get into a QB debate it's just not the same gm any longer.

[maggiethebestdog]

My stats prove my point, all you are is spouting off is an opinion. You use a small sample size (certain guys who just jack up shots) and interpret the entire league as that. The statistics prove this is incorrect, they aren't biased and they encapsulate the entire league as a whole each year instead of you picking examples out of a small sample size to fit your needs to support your argument.



As I said, your opinion is wrong and you have nothing to back up your statements. Stats don't lie and you're just in denial. Oh, and I have played plenty of basketball in my life, but even if I hadn't it has no bearing on the NBA in it's current or previous state.

OK, one last time. You use stats from 78-79 and compare that to 20 yrs of basketball in one case. You say there were more foul shots attempted in old days than 96 on. That shows shots were contested more in old days and people had to earn their points from the line instead of today's James Harden defense. You are so stupid you don't see how that proves my point. Older teams had many good scoring players on the floor. Now, it is one or two ball hogs that account for 8O% of their teams points. That is why the points and shooting % are higher. The offensive players today shoot horrible % because they stink, not because of defense. They don't run an offense other than get the ball to the hogs. The fact they average as many points as they do per game despite nobody playing defense just shows the lack of running an active team offense.

I could go on and on, but you wouldn't get it. You don't know how to read stats. Just because you are ignorant and don't look into what the stats actually prove, doesn't mean one of them has proven me wrong. On the contrary, they prove my points. Statistics in the hands of the ignorant are dangerous.

[maggiethebestdog]

I remember the 80's and still my fave decade for nba . But let's not kid ourselves and get caught up in nostalgia romance to much. Haven't seen this mentioned yet but you have to look at the rules 1st of all. Call it a more pussified rule book if you wish but no doubt it's had a big impact on dictating how gm is played. Same with Nfl you cannot fairly compare defenses from back in the day to this era or get into a QB debate it's just not the same gm any longer.

I agree, but in the old days you could watch just about any NFL game if you love football. Today, the majority of games are unwatchable. The level of play is so poor that players starting now could not have made a roster in the 80's. Same is true of the NBA.
Look at bench players in the NBA and QB's in the NFL today. A complete joke. That is not a different game thing, it is lack of coaching and talent in modern times. They are just hyped more now. Could you imagine if Lawrence Taylor played in his prime today???? He would make 100 million a year and be more hyped than he was in the 80's tenfold. He made Von Miller, a great player, look like just a good player.

[astro61200]

OK, one last time. You use stats from 78-79 and compare that to 20 yrs of basketball in one case. You say there were more foul shots attempted in old days than 96 on. That shows shots were contested more in old days and people had to earn their points from the line instead of today's James Harden defense. You are so stupid you don't see how that proves my point. Older teams had many good scoring players on the floor. Now, it is one or two ball hogs that account for 8O% of their teams points. That is why the points and shooting % are higher. The offensive players today shoot horrible % because they stink, not because of defense. They don't run an offense other than get the ball to the hogs. The fact they average as many points as they do per game despite nobody playing defense just shows the lack of running an active team offense.

I could go on and on, but you wouldn't get it. You don't know how to read stats. Just because you are ignorant and don't look into what the stats actually prove, doesn't mean one of them has proven me wrong. On the contrary, they prove my points. Statistics in the hands of the ignorant are dangerous.

No, I use stats from 78-79 to 89-90.. I'm not pulling 1 year's worth of stats. I'm using a broad sample size that covers what you referred to (the 80's) compared to today (96-now, since you lumped Jordan/Pippen in with now)

The more FT's from then point to the fact that most people, and I'm assuming you too since you give nothing to back up any statement, think fouls are far too easy to come by now then they were back then. Yet the statistics show there were more fouls committed then. This stat doesn't prove anything for your point at all.

You claim that there are ball hogs everywhere, yet the assists to FGM ratio is pretty much identical in the 80's to today, so this disproves your theory as more ball hogs would mean far less assists (because, ya know, you have to pass it and all for assists).

You claim that poor shooting isn't caused by defense but by just poor play. There are stats that disprove this, but seeing as the most basic of stats I provided just go WAY over your head then providing those are a lost cause (plus detailed stats like that weren't kept back then so it's tougher to compare)

The fact that you say they don't run an offense, just "get the ball to the hogs" is, again, disproven by the assist to FGM ratio.

You can go on and on, and I'll gladly prove you wrong each time, if you'd like. The stats don't lie, and seeing as how I have, literally, disproven certain statements of yours with FACTS (such as you claiming offensive rebounds are easier to come by now then they were back then, but the statistics prove the complete opposite) then it really shows me that I'm not the one who doesn't "know how to read stats."

The stats completely disprove nearly everything you've said. The only reason they don't completely disprove EVERYTHING you said is because some things are subjective (such as the effect of European players) or they just didn't keep as detailed stats back then (such as type of shots, range of shots, and contested shots).

I can't speak for everyone, but I feel very confident that if someone went through and read the entire thread they wouldn't believe I'm the "ignorant" one that makes statistics "dangerous".

You have an opinion and you're entitled to it, even though you're about as wrong as wrong can be and I've proven this, but it's obvious you aren't going to change your mind in the face of facts that disprove your thinking.

[maggiethebestdog]

No, I use stats from 78-79 to 89-90.. I'm not pulling 1 year's worth of stats. I'm using a broad sample size that covers what you referred to (the 80's) compared to today (96-now, since you lumped Jordan/Pippen in with now)

The more FT's from then point to the fact that most people, and I'm assuming you too since you give nothing to back up any statement, think fouls are far too easy to come by now then they were back then. Yet the statistics show there were more fouls committed then. This stat doesn't prove anything for your point at all.

You claim that there are ball hogs everywhere, yet the assists to FGM ratio is pretty much identical in the 80's to today, so this disproves your theory as more ball hogs would mean far less assists (because, ya know, you have to pass it and all for assists).

You claim that poor shooting isn't caused by defense but by just poor play. There are stats that disprove this, but seeing as the most basic of stats I provided just go WAY over your head then providing those are a lost cause (plus detailed stats like that weren't kept back then so it's tougher to compare)

The fact that you say they don't run an offense, just "get the ball to the hogs" is, again, disproven by the assist to FGM ratio.

You can go on and on, and I'll gladly prove you wrong each time, if you'd like. The stats don't lie, and seeing as how I have, literally, disproven certain statements of yours with FACTS (such as you claiming offensive rebounds are easier to come by now then they were back then, but the statistics prove the complete opposite) then it really shows me that I'm not the one who doesn't "know how to read stats."

The stats completely disprove nearly everything you've said. The only reason they don't completely disprove EVERYTHING you said is because some things are subjective (such as the effect of European players) or they just didn't keep as detailed stats back then (such as type of shots, range of shots, and contested shots).

I can't speak for everyone, but I feel very confident that if someone went through and read the entire thread they wouldn't believe I'm the "ignorant" one that makes statistics "dangerous".

You have an opinion and you're entitled to it, even though you're about as wrong as wrong can be and I've proven this, but it's obvious you aren't going to change your mind in the face of facts that disprove your thinking.

Stats alone prove nothing. If a running back like AP averages 2 yds per carry for a game, does that mean he had a terrible game??? He had holes open and missed them??? Or is it likely that his Off line was getting dominated and he had nowhere to run. Also, the defense decided to take him out of the game and the passing game was not good enough when challenged. I think the obvious truth are the 2 latter things. We know what he can do when he has somewhere to run and he has a passing game going.

That is how people like you look at stats only and can't understand why the stat says what it says. It takes a sports person to decipher what the stat actually is telling you, like in my example above where people like you would say AP had a terrible game. Not one stat mentioned by you proves one conclusion you say it proves. Just vomiting out stats doesn't tell someone anything. You have to dig deeper, and you can't because you are not at that level. I am not wasting my time with a stat only guy that doesn't know that stats don't reflect the actual truth. Please try and disprove me again using my AP example. That tells the whole story about stats with no insight given to them. You are toast.

[astro61200]

Stats alone prove nothing. If a running back like AP averages 2 yds per carry for a game, does that mean he had a terrible game??? He had holes open and missed them??? Or is it likely that his Off line was getting dominated and he had nowhere to run. Also, the defense decided to take him out of the game and the passing game was not good enough when challenged. I think the obvious truth are the 2 latter things. We know what he can do when he has somewhere to run and he has a passing game going.

That is how people like you look at stats only and can't understand why the stat says what it says. It takes a sports person to decipher what the stat actually is telling you, like in my example above where people like you would say AP had a terrible game. Not one stat mentioned by you proves one conclusion you say it proves. Just vomiting out stats doesn't tell someone anything. You have to dig deeper, and you can't because you are not at that level. I am not wasting my time with a stat only guy that doesn't know that stats don't reflect the actual truth. Please try and disprove me again using my AP example. That tells the whole story about stats with no insight given to them. You are toast.

Yes, if he averages 2 yards a game it means he had a terrible game. Also, I am using a 10 year sample size and a 20 year sample size for the entire league. That is far different than one single game. For someone who claims to understand statistics, and claims I don't, you really seem oblivious. Like, extremely, it's pretty amazing how ignorant you are, actually.

To take your football example, then why did Chris Johnson bounce around for a few years after he rushed for 2000+ yards? Obviously, he is good so it's not his fault that the team let him down (in his down years). I guess those GMs that released him must not be sports people either, they just aren't able to decipher things like you.

Again, like I said in my first post, you're all opinion with nothing to back it up. You've been disproven repeatedly but are too dimwitted to either just stop or admit you are wrong. It was a stupid post, and you've only made yourself look even more ignorant since.

[maggiethebestdog]

Just when i think you can't get any dumber you step up to the plate.

[astro61200]

Just when i think you can't get any dumber you step up to the plate.

You have flip flopped on half your statements plus I have debunked pretty much every thing you have said. From the myth that defense was tougher in the 80's to your claim that offensive rebounds were harder to come by then.

Now you switch to football and try to use a single game as an example, when I'm using 11 years and 21 years worth of statistics to prove my point in basketball.

I promise you, if Adrian Peterson averaged 2 yards a game for just 2 or 3 years, let alone 11, he would be out of the league. Your remark is pure hyperbole and your original statement, and pretty much every statement since in this thread, lacks any merit.