Overrated defense of the 80s/90s

[arifgokcen]

In reality who knows. I've watched maybe 40 games from 80's and 90's end to end in my lifetime (on youtube). I've watched NBA heavily every year from 1997 onwards.

My opinion is similar to that of the OP. They didn't play great (or even good by today's standards) defense in that era. The difference is that they occasionally got into more arguments, or fights, or hard fouls and those weren't made into a big deal (i.e ejections). This is what was 'tougher' about that era.

In general though everyone played a much higher pace, more fun/team oriented style. At the same time, nowadays generally players don't get the same sort of free layups they allowed back then. Usually, they get hacked or put on the line.

Agreed.Defense was poor but hard fouls arguments et. was different back then

If you think that 80s 90s and teams would dominate teams today you are either:

1. An old fella who doesnt wanna let go of his child hood and prop his era up by downing todays

2. A young kid who's trying to attempt to sound smart by saying old is better than new.

3. A young kid trying to gain credibility from older posters by saying that.

80s 90s would NOT dominate current in the least. You have to be stupid to think say. Neither would dominate either.

+111111111111111111

I'm sorry, but those late 80's champs would murk the current NBA champs. I honestly believe the '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, and '88 Pistons would have their way with the '10 Lakers, '11 Mavs, or '12 Heat. I think it could even end up being borderline embarrassing.

Those teams as good as they were back then werent nearly as athletic as today's contenders and now we see teams constructed like old teams doesnt and cant contend in todays league just look at lakers.

A team like OKC would mop the floor with them.

[KG215]

Those teams as good as they were back then werent nearly as athletic as today's contenders and now we see teams constructed like old teams doesnt and cant contend in todays league just look at lakers.

A team like OKC would mop the floor with them.

Ummmm.....yeah, maybe not the Celtics, but you're cray if you don't think the Bad Boy Pistons or Showtime Lakers weren't as athletic as some teams today.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

The reason why teams of the 80s would really kill a lot of the teams today is because of the depth of the tam back then.

Strip McHale/Walton/Maxwell off the Celtics team because they are playing in Toronto and Vancouver/Memphis. Strip Worthy/Scott/Thompson off the Lakers because they are playing for the Thunder/Heat/Magic. Strip Dumars/Laimbeer/Rodman off the Pistons because they are playing for the Wolves/Bobcats.

The major reason why the 80s team would win against the teams of today is because teams in the 80s had multiple all-stars and 6th men as all-stars. Think about that. The Heat and Thunder are considered stacked when they have 2+ all-stars on their team. (And I don't mean "all-star" as in he was once an all-star... I mean he was an all-star that year they were actually playing.)

[CavaliersFTW]

Defensive rating is tied to offensive rating. Those same statistics could just as easily be used to conclude that the 80's and 90's offenses were better than the offenses of today.

I don't agree with either conclusion per say, but it is what it is.

and with that said /thread people!

[brain drain]

Ummmm.....yeah, maybe not the Celtics, but you're cray if you don't think the Bad Boy Pistons or Showtime Lakers weren't as athletic as some teams today.

No matter what it was, the trend was already downward around '90, even just looking at those same players drafted in the mid / late 80s. Which coincides with the league trend at the time: between 1980 and 1986, the league average FG% was around 49% (and that was't just Larry Bird an a few select marksmen, that was the whole league, superstars, stars, scrubs). Then, between 86 and 94 it decreased to 46%. Between 94 and 99 it went down further to 43.7%.

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved

[brain drain]

The reason why teams of the 80s would really kill a lot of the teams today is because of the depth of the tam back then.

Strip McHale/Walton/Maxwell off the Celtics team because they are playing in Toronto and Vancouver/Memphis. Strip Worthy/Scott/Thompson off the Lakers because they are playing for the Thunder/Heat/Magic. Strip Dumars/Laimbeer/Rodman off the Pistons because they are playing for the Wolves/Bobcats.

The major reason why the 80s team would win against the teams of today is because teams in the 80s had multiple all-stars and 6th men as all-stars. Think about that. The Heat and Thunder are considered stacked when they have 2+ all-stars on their team. (And I don't mean "all-star" as in he was once an all-star... I mean he was an all-star that year they were actually playing.)

Nah, they had a few superteams, just like we have now. League expansion most probably is equalized by influx of world wide talent (just think of the league without Dirk, Manu, Tony Parker, Ricky Rubio, Pekovic, the Gasols, Nash, Varejao, Noah etc. - they're not all superstars, but removing them would also mean talent dilution).


Also, the talent dilution theory (TM) doesn't fit well with the diagram i posted. Generally, the fg% of the players i selected went down over time (with the exception of Stockton & Malone who reached a new plateu in the mid 90's, probably because the league didn't have a defensive answer to their pick'n'roll). If talent dilution had taken place, the fg% of the undiluted players I selected should've at least stayed the same level (or gone up, preying on the weaker talent entering the league). But that didn't happen. How do you explain that?

[97 bulls]

No matter what it was, the trend was already downward around '90, even just looking at those same players drafted in the mid / late 80s. Which coincides with the league trend at the time: between 1980 and 1986, the league average FG% was around 49% (and that was't just Larry Bird an a few select marksmen, that was the whole league, superstars, stars, scrubs). Then, between 86 and 94 it decreased to 46%. Between 94 and 99 it went down further to 43.7%.

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved

The game has changed. Teams just dont run as much as they used to. I do feel theres a bigger emphasis on defense. But the game has changed. For some rrason, people cant grasp that. It doesnt make it better or worse. Its more of a preference.

You see the same thing in football. Calvin Johnson btoke the recieving record set by Jerry Rice. Doesnt mean hes better than Rice.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Nah, they had a few superteams, just like we have now. League expansion most probably is equalized by influx of world wide talent (just think of the league without Dirk, Manu, Tony Parker, Ricky Rubio, Pekovic, the Gasols, Nash, Varejao, Noah etc. - they're not all superstars, but removing them would also mean talent dilution).

Not really. The influx of international players has not equalized it. The depth on the team was much greater back then than it was today. The league needs contraction anyway. They should just go ahead and take out the LOLCats and the Pelicans. Or the Craptors. Doesn't matter. Be better for the league.

[brain drain]

The game has changed. Teams just dont run as much as they used to. I do feel theres a bigger emphasis on defense. But the game has changed. For some rrason, people cant grasp that. It doesnt make it better or worse. Its more of a preference.

You see the same thing in football. Calvin Johnson btoke the recieving record set by Jerry Rice. Doesnt mean hes better than Rice.

I wouldn't say "it just changed". Otherwise Run TMC, the Dirk/Nash/Finley-Mavs or the mid-2000s Phoenix Suns would've had more success. Especially the Suns had an extremely high talent level but still couldn't make it (unless you say that the change in league wide philosophy denied them the time necessary to mature to champion teams).

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Defenses definitely have gotten more sophisticated in the last 30 years. Nowadays teams have footage to go over within minutes/hours. There is nothing new under the sun for some players/teams. There is so much tape of it.

Back in the 80s... it just wasn't that way. Scouting and gameplanning was just beginning. And by the time data was collected, it could very well be obsolete if used in games.

Does that make the league worse in the 80s? No. Does it make it better? No. It just means they played in a smaller league, with a faster pace, and less advanced scouting. Today the league is more spread out, slower pace, and a lot more advanced scouting.

[KG215]

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved

It's not just one or the other. Those trends also coincide with teams gradually becoming more and more dependent on the 3P line. Not saying that's the only reason FG% decreased, but league average FG% decreasing doesn't only mean defenses improved. It's a combination of things. I don't think defenses from a specific era have ever been significantly better or significantly worse than defenses from a different era. Philosophies, pace, play styles, rules, technology etc. change from era to era. But, in my opinion, the actual overall abilities and skills from one era have never been significantly better or significantly worse than the abilities and skills from another era.

I will say that I think defenses get more and more sophisticated every few years with improved scouting capabilities.

[brain drain]

Not really. The influx of international players has not equalized it. The depth on the team was much greater back then than it was today. The league needs contraction anyway. They should just go ahead and take out the LOLCats and the Pelicans. Or the Craptors. Doesn't matter. Be better for the league.

I'm not sure about that. First, there are 84 foreign-born players in the NBA now. Compare that to 85 when there were probably 5 or 10.

Second, if talent dilution was the reason for the decrease in scoring, why don't the good players have godly fg% nowadays? Why does a guy like Kevin Durant only have one and a half seasons (the last and the current one) with a fg% above 49% when that was the average during the first half of the 80s? Is Durant just an average scrub compared to those godly scorers in the 80s?

[brain drain]

It's not just one or the other. Those trends also coincide with teams gradually becoming more and more dependent on the 3P line. Not saying that's the ony reason FG% decreased, but league average FG% decreasing doesn't only mean defenses improved. It's a combination of things. I don't think defenses from a specific era have ever been significantly better or significantly worse than defenses from a different era. Philosophies, pace, play styles, rules, technology etc. change from era to era. But, in my opinion, the actual overall abilities and skills from one era have never been significantly better or significantly worse than the abilities and skills from another era.

I will say that I think defenses get more and more sophisticated and every few years with improved scouting capabilities.

That's why I tried to focus on individual players.
Take a look at Barkley: In his first 8 seasons (until he was 28) he never had a fg% below 54.5.
Then he had one season with 52% fg%. And after that, he would never again have more than 50% fg%. Do you really think that was only because of 3 pointers?

[Deuce Bigalow]

and with that said /thread people!

Maybe they were "better" because the defense was worse. And it was.

[KG215]

That's why I tried to focus on individual players.
Take a look at Barkley: In his first 8 seasons (until he was 28) he never had a fg% below 54.5.
Then he had one season with 52% fg%. And after that, he would never again have more than 50% fg%. Do you really think that was only because of 3 pointers?

I never said it was only because of the 3P line. But, on top of getting older I'm pretty sure Barkley started shooting more threes per season as he aged. I'd have to look it up, though.