Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLadiesMike  Let's not forget that those guys also had some disadvantages that today's players didn't have:
1. The pre-expansion era - the league was much smaller, which meant only the best made it into the game, rather than the talent pool being diluted.
2. Sports and nutrition science - while we criticize players for being less athletic, keep in mind we knew less about the body and fitness, and what needed to be done to maximize athleticism. Look at how thin guys like Russell and Gervin and Kareem were, even Shaq early in his career. We also knew less about treating and recovering from injuries.
3. Fundamentals - maybe they weren't guarding guys that had 40 inch verticals but they were playing against guys that had solid fundamentals and could shoot and played hard.
4. Luxuries - players back in the day made way less money, didn't have team charters and would take trains and buses, back-to-back-to-back games, etc.
It was a different era. Not better or worse, just different. |
some myths here that might not be true
1 expansion dilution
I saw an article on this, probably not true.
Roughly here is what I remember
In 67/68 there was 1 team per 2 million males aged 20-30 in the US.
currently it is 1 per 1 million. However, prior to the 70s most players came from the northeast example- Texas 35 players in the NBA from Texas high Schools this season, 1950 to 1980 31 the population has only doubled since the 60s in Texas so that doesn't account for it. Add in the new source of players from Europe and probably no dilution as the pool for players has increased significantly.
2 better fundementals- I would say no. The only objective measure FT% has improved over time. Watch a game from the 60s and you will see a lot of clanged shots-all world point guards (like the Logo) who had trouble dribbibling with their non-dominant hand.
Passing has improved dramaticly.