Please, let's not get into the "sports were so much better back in the day than they are today" cycle. It's a bad argument, using bad logic, that is all too often unprovable by any reasonable standard. Appreciate the game you've got, and stop lamenting about how great things were when you were a kid. It's not good for your heart.
As half of my tag proclaims, I'm an old ABA guy. Grew up watching the Pacers coached by Slick Leonard, so his takes in the Stokes piece were appreciated. I think talent-wise, there were as many good players then as now, only now the training's different, the outlook more corporate, etc. You don't think a Mo Stokes, with 2008 facilities, would shine in the modern NBA? Or Elgin Baylor? Bob Love? Roger Brown? Okay, I'll give you George Mikan, whose only advantage was that he was big when there were few big men (and I like Mikan -- the first ABA commish, remember). But players like Maravich or Charlie Scott, whom a friend of mine says would not make the Bobcats, much less a better team today, I believe would do just fine, applying their gifts to the modern age. Enough of this generation segregation!
Please, let's not get into the "sports were so much better back in the day than they are today" cycle. It's a bad argument, using bad logic, that is all too often unprovable by any reasonable standard. I don't think any of us are trying to say that basketball was better in the '50s and '60s. The point is that the game was different, and possibly more enjoyable as a TEAM sport, than it is today. I will agree completely that training methods have made today's basketball players far more athletically inclined than their counterparts of 40 years ago, but the players' athleticism does not necessarily make the game better or worse. "Old school" basketball relied on positioning, movement without the ball, screens, and set plays. None of those elements have disappeared from the game today, but the element of individual play by the "superstars", creating one's own scoring opportunities, having most of the plays run for your benefit, and the like, has changed the game. The more successful teams still stick to the basics while offering more than one or two threats. Basketball is more fun to watch when 5 players are involved than it is when 4 clear the floor on one side while the star goes one-on-one. That's playground ball, and to me, at least, just a bit boring.
Thanks for a great post lilnemo. I'm not a basketball fan in any way, so I usually just skip those posts, but that headline kind of grabbed me. What a tragic story that is! Many of us consider the potential of serious injury when we talk about football or hockey, but not with baskeball. It really reminds one of how quickly life and livelyhood can be taken away in a freakish accident.
My rant was not about the actual structure of the game itself. I think that is there and will never change. My argument is basically pointed toward the fundementals of the game. Shooting, rebounding defensive and offensive play etc... As I pointed out in my first responce, a team had the chance to beat the #1 team in the country Saturday and couldn't get over the hump because they missed EVERY free throw going down the stretch. What is ironic about that game is that NC couldn't hit a free throw either but it didn't matter because VT was already behind and because of missed free throws couldn't catch up. I heard an announcer say they shot 100 throws daily and the other announcer said they didn't shoot enough in a practice game situation, thats exactly right. It all goes back to poor coaching.
