watched game four of the 1987 NBA Finals (on ESPN Classic, I’m guessing) and observes that….
… it actually is true that if you’re immersed in the contemporary NBA the relative lack of athleticism on display is striking. Which, of course, is precisely what you’d expect. Bird and Magic not only saved the NBA, but ushered in an era of radically higher player salaries. That, in turn, led to substantial increases in amount of time and money invested in locating the best possible prospects from all around the world and into making the players the best they can be.
That’s not to take anything away from the greats of past era — it’s just the way the world works, but it would be silly to make appropriate appreciation of the greatness of of older players dependent on denying the obvious fact that today’s players are stronger, quicker, and can jump higher than those of yesteryear.
(Thanks to the Sunday News’ Gil Smart for leading us to this one.)
Yglesias is a terrific journalist, formerly of the American Prospect and now on Atlantic magazine’s web site, who almost always writes (very well) about public affairs, but happens to be a big NBA fan. As you might have guessed from the above, he’s a young guy.
This argument is in my wheelhouse. Comparing athletes from different eras is endless fun, and I loved to death the NBA in the 1980s. It had, it says here, the highest sustained level of play of any American team sport, ever. Four of the best 10 basketball teams ever played in the NBA in the 80s. The Olympic Dream Team was in effect an 80s NBA all-decade team, and that was the best team ever put together, in any sport.
Most of the salient points re Yglesias’s commentary are made in the massive comment scroll following it, here, but I do have a couple things…
Basketball is the only sport I’ve played against good athletes (not trying to suggest I was good; believe me, I know I sucked, but I did, years ago, play in some good summer/rec leagues). Up against guys on my own level of quickness and athleticism - of which there weren’t many - I could shoot and pass and dribble and appear to be a decent basketball player. Against athletes, I looked like someone with neurological issues too profound for even state-of-the-art treatment and therapy to overcome.
So I’ve always been pro-athleticism, and generally bought in to the “bigger-stronger-faster” argument. I’m starting to come off that position, though. The performance of U.S. teams in recent international competition, against opponents obviously inferior in raw athleticism, is one reason.
The Spurs are another. I remember watching them during the daily grind of the regular season and thinking they might be too old now. They didn’t look quick and bouncy enough for Dallas, Phoenix, etc. Might have been, um, a bit off in that judgment.
But even if you are pro-athleticism, Yglesias is overstating it. The 80s game still looks great on video and that makes sense; the 80s were only 20-25 years ago. The species doesn’t evolve that fast. Sure, advanced training and steroids makes contemporary players look physically more impressive, but not necessarily superior across the broad range of skills that make a basketball player. This isn’t swimming.
Also, the way the NBA is set up financially now, with the salary cap and slotted salary levels, you literally cannot put together teams as loaded as the 80s monsters. Take the ‘83 Sixers: Two historically great players (Moses, Dr. J), two borderline hall of famers (Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones), one utterly unique guy who would have been a hall of famer had his feet held up (Andrew Toney) and a solid collection of bench and role players. And that team won one championship, and was no better than the third-best of the era.
More importantly, people like Bird and Magic are outliers, for whom the evolutionary rules aren’t wrong so much as irrelevant. When Magic came along, nearly 30 years ago now, people said 6-9 point guards with mad skills were the wave of the future. Where are they?
