Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    I thought I'd post some information on why the 24 second clock is considered the birth of the modern NBA...I would recommend reading three short articles found on NBA.com:

    "History of the Shot Clock"

    "24-Second Shot Clock Rescues League"

    "24-Second Clock Revived the Game"

    Before the shot clock the level of play was almost absurd.....teams could stall anytime they wanted...the number of fouls given was much higher ( when leading a game, the winning team often froze the ball....the trailing team was left to resort to fouling to get the ball back....the limit on fouls  was much greater).....the greatest example of this is a game between the Lakers and the Pistons...The Pistons won the game 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in history...the Pistons outscored the Lakers 3-1 in the 4th Qtr....Laker fans take note...this is the era that resulted in your first 5 titles...when the game changed the Lakers had to go over 20 years before they would win again...

    These articles take less than a minute to read....there are countless others on the subject...in the first year teams increased their score by an average of over 13 point per game...the Celtics soon became the first team to average over 100 points....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc) and the elimination of the almost laughable "3 chances to make 2".....anyone who wants to get a perspective of the league's history should take a few minutes and do some "required reading"...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Now, The Duke is assiginging homework?  (;>) 

    Geez and on the weekend too.  Looks like a good topic to read up on, though. I'm going to get reading, Sir, and I will be getting back to you. 

    Do you have any info on current proposed rule changes?  That would be of great interest too but or another thread.

    Thank god for shot clocks.  Run Tommy run.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Hi Buddy.....tell you what.....enjoy your weekend and you can begin your studies tomorrow ok?  Wink
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]I thought I'd post some information on why the 24 second clock is considered the birth of the modern NBA...I would recommend reading three short articles found on NBA.com: "History of the Shot Clock" "24-Second Shot Clock Rescues League" "24-Second Clock Revived the Game" Before the shot clock the level of play was almost absurd.....teams could stall anytime they wanted...the number of fouls given was much higher ( when leading a game, the winning team often froze the ball....the trailing team was left to resort to fouling to get the ball back....the limit on fouls  was much greater).....the greatest example of this is a game between the Lakers and the Pistons...The Pistons won the game 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in history...the Pistons outscored the Lakers 3-1 in the 4th Qtr....Laker fans take note...this is the era that resulted in your first 5 titles...when the game changed the Lakers had to go over 20 years before they would win again... These articles take less than a minute to read....there are countless others on the subject...in the first year teams increased their score by an average of over 13 point per game...the Celtics soon became the first team to average over 100 points....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc) and the elimination of the almost laughable "3 chances to make 2".....anyone who wants to get a perspective of the league's history should take a few minutes and do some "required reading"...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]I thought I'd post some information on why the 24 second clock is considered the birth of the modern NBA...I would recommend reading three short articles found on NBA.com: "History of the Shot Clock" "24-Second Shot Clock Rescues League" "24-Second Clock Revived the Game" Before the shot clock the level of play was almost absurd.....teams could stall anytime they wanted...the number of fouls given was much higher ( when leading a game, the winning team often froze the ball....the trailing team was left to resort to fouling to get the ball back....the limit on fouls  was much greater).....the greatest example of this is a game between the Lakers and the Pistons...The Pistons won the game 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in history...the Pistons outscored the Lakers 3-1 in the 4th Qtr....Laker fans take note...this is the era that resulted in your first 5 titles...when the game changed the Lakers had to go over 20 years before they would win again... These articles take less than a minute to read....there are countless others on the subject...in the first year teams increased their score by an average of over 13 point per game...the Celtics soon became the first team to average over 100 points....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc) and the elimination of the almost laughable "3 chances to make 2".....anyone who wants to get a perspective of the league's history should take a few minutes and do some "required reading"...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]I thought I'd post some information on why the 24 second clock is considered the birth of the modern NBA...I would recommend reading three short articles found on NBA.com: "History of the Shot Clock" "24-Second Shot Clock Rescues League" "24-Second Clock Revived the Game" Before the shot clock the level of play was almost absurd.....teams could stall anytime they wanted...the number of fouls given was much higher ( when leading a game, the winning team often froze the ball....the trailing team was left to resort to fouling to get the ball back....the limit on fouls  was much greater).....the greatest example of this is a game between the Lakers and the Pistons...The Pistons won the game 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in history...the Pistons outscored the Lakers 3-1 in the 4th Qtr....Laker fans take note...this is the era that resulted in your first 5 titles...when the game changed the Lakers had to go over 20 years before they would win again... These articles take less than a minute to read....there are countless others on the subject...in the first year teams increased their score by an average of over 13 point per game...the Celtics soon became the first team to average over 100 points....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc) and the elimination of the almost laughable "3 chances to make 2".....anyone who wants to get a perspective of the league's history should take a few minutes and do some "required reading"...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA


    Duke4

    You are right about the"Shot Clock" changing the game, but there was an equaly important time period in the late 70's. That is when the people who played the game, changed dramaticaly.By 1973 Southern white colleges were graduating black basketball players on a regular basis. This new sourse of black talent quickly led to a takeover by blacks that was quite swift, and by 1979-1980 they were the dominant force in the league.Since then the quality of play in the nba has far out stripped the quality of the teams of the 50's and 60's.

    SeemsToMe
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]Duke4 You are right about the"Shot Clock" changing the game, but there was an equaly important time period in the late 70's. That is when the people who played the game, changed dramaticaly.By 1973 Southern white colleges were graduating black basketball players on a regular basis. This new sourse of black talent quickly led to a takeover by blacks that was quite swift, and by 1979-1980 they were the dominant force in the league.Since then the quality of play in the nba has far out stripped the quality of the teams of the 50's and 60's. SeemsToMe
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    Cooooooorrect!

    Since then, the celts have been but a blip on the radar screen with the exception of Bird's team. Oops, that's right IF Bias hadn't died....IF Reggie hadn't died.....IF boston had drafted MJ.....IF boston had traded for Duncan etc etc etc (lmao). I momentarily forgot beantown fans deal in IFS!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Guys, the Celtics were loaded with great black players...........remember....first to field an all black starting five....go back and look at the "Greatest 50 List....loaded with black talent that began coming into the league by the late 1950's....Russell came along in 1956....Baylor in '58...Chamberlain, Robertson.....and on and on...and those players pre 1990?  ....much better basketball players fundamentally!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Hey KB24.....did you read the articles I suggested? ....if you did then you realize that your first 5 titles came in a league where a team could outscore another 3-1 in the 4th qtr of the game....that was the early NBA that your team dominated.....your team actually lost a game 19-18....yeah, that sure was top quality basketball....the new rules changed the game....we immediately began to dominate....and it took your team over 20 years to win again.....
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]Guys, the Celtics were loaded with great black players...........remember....first to field an all black starting five....go back and look at the "Greatest 50 List....loaded with black talent that began coming into the league by the late 1950's....Russell came along in 1956....Baylor in '58...Chamberlain, Robertson.....and on and on...and those players pre 1990?  ....much better basketball players fundamentally!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    I think they had better coaching and they were perhaps playing the game for better reasons. Mainly because they loved the game of basketball and not chasing the almighty dollar. 

    Although there has always been money in the NBA, but not the kind of money guys started to get paid in the 80's and the insane money in subsequent years.

    The players may also be more athletic but that's no compensation for a high basketball IQ. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA : I think they had better coaching and they were perhaps playing the game for better reasons. Mainly because they loved the game of basketball and not chasing the almighty dollar.  Although there has always been money in the NBA, but not the kind of money guys started to get paid in the 80's and the insane money in subsequent years. The players may also be more athletic but that's no compensation for a high basketball IQ. 
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]


    Many decades (and decades) ago I met Tommy Heinsohn walking with his kid in downtown Worcester where he sold insurance in the off-season.  I was a freshman in college and he was in his last years of playing, but I was amazed that these guys had to have jobs, real working jobs, during the summer.  They had just won another championship and not long after, Heinsohn was selling insurance - he had to take his (salesmanship) talents to Worcester.  Yes, a very different time indeed.  But can any of us blame today's players for taking the stupid money that owners are apparently willing to hand them?  I will readily admit that I've changed jobs because of the money offered to me, so far be it from me to cast aspersions on players for capitalizing on the gullibility of owners. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    I agree with you, if someone offered me that kind of money to play Basketball I'd take it was well. No blame to the players at all.

    I think the difference in Heinsohn's day and up to the time of say Jordan (I don't know was that too late?) was that they played more for the love of the game. Different era. 

    I'm so envious of some of the posters who who've actually met guys like Russell and Heinsohn. Absolute legends of the game.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    No doubt money has changed things.   I live in NYC where Walt Frazier does the color for Knick games.  Frazier often hints that long term  guranteed contracts--something that didn't exist in his day-- have had an impact on motivation.  

    He doesn't say that players lay down and die after they get guranteed dough but  even a slight drop off in motivation can have a noticable impact.

    Just imagine.  You're young, rich and financially set for life.  It's the off season and you're supposed to do a 5 mile jog, lift weights and then work on individual skills.  As you're sweating through your regimen, the thought creeps into your head that one of the points of having all that money is to enjoy life...




     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA


    Duke4

    Based on the top 5 players on each team that were 6'7" or shorter (that would be the positions other than center) and would represent those positions where speed and quickness dominate. Russell's first year in the nba (1956-57) whites held 86% 0f those positions.  In the 60's the whites held about 50% of those positions. In 1985 whites held 11% of those 4 positions.The number of whites this past year dropped to 3%. That doesn't say much for the American white basketball player. Also, compare the shooting percentages of the 50's and 60's with the players of the 80's on to the present. Many of the stars of the late 50's and early 60's were barely able to hit 40%. For the most part its a black man's game-something the white players of the 50's and 60's were about to learn.

    SeemsToMe
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Happy birthday Kobe.....now for the 3-peat!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]No doubt money has changed things.   I live in NYC where Walt Frazier does the color for Knick games.  Frazier often hints that long term  guranteed contracts--something that didn't exist in his day-- have had an impact on motivation.   He doesn't say that players lay down and die after they get guranteed dough but  even a slight drop off in motivation can have a noticable impact. Just imagine.  You're young, rich and financially set for life.  It's the off season and you're supposed to do a 5 mile jog, lift weights and then work on individual skills.  As you're sweating through your regimen, the thought creeps into your head that one of the points of having all that money is to enjoy life...  
    Posted by paulliu[/QUOTE]

    -

    I'm so much in agreement with many things on Duke's thread here.  I had some good reads.  The fact that the guys had to work in the off season?  Some people just can't wrap their heads around that but my Dad harped on it and told me stories of a lot of ballpalyers and their odd jobs.  That must sure have been a different time.

    But I wish I could see a timeline of how and why fairly decent seats got up to $180 for the 10th row way left of center court.  That is what hurts the game.  The old guys talk of walking down to the Garden when Bird and the big three were playing and being able to buy tickets from a scalper right in front of the Garden for $15 to $25. 

    But Duke said a mouthful here: "....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc)"

    Wouldn't it be great if they called the rules correctly.  It gets worse every year with the travelling, palming and flopping, let's not forget flopping.  We got to get back to the rules and eliminate the superstar calls.  The League is in trouble.

    But the above poster makes a great point with his Walt Fraizer, story and I do believe that is an aspect of some people's human behavoir.  But the nature of the way the guys come up now with the AAU Teams, and playing together, and knowing each other most of their lives has also messed up the competition.

    I would like to see a good minor league system like baseball has but one that can pay it's players well and develop them for the NBA.  Make it mandatory to play two years in the minors unless you had two years of college.  Get some maturity under their belts living away from home and learning how to behave and manage their money.

    I'd pay to see guys at that level play ball in smaller venues in smaller cities.  Good money too.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA


    2010-11 Forecast: NBA champions

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]I thought I'd post some information on why the 24 second clock is considered the birth of the modern NBA...I would recommend reading three short articles found on NBA.com: "History of the Shot Clock" "24-Second Shot Clock Rescues League" "24-Second Clock Revived the Game" Before the shot clock the level of play was almost absurd.....teams could stall anytime they wanted...the number of fouls given was much higher ( when leading a game, the winning team often froze the ball....the trailing team was left to resort to fouling to get the ball back....the limit on fouls  was much greater).....the greatest example of this is a game between the Lakers and the Pistons...The Pistons won the game 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in history...the Pistons outscored the Lakers 3-1 in the 4th Qtr....Laker fans take note...this is the era that resulted in your first 5 titles...when the game changed the Lakers had to go over 20 years before they would win again... These articles take less than a minute to read....there are countless others on the subject...in the first year teams increased their score by an average of over 13 point per game...the Celtics soon became the first team to average over 100 points....the game played back then is very similar to today's game....the exceptions being the 3 point field goal, the decreased emphasis on calling the game using the original rules (traveling, up and down, palming, etc) and the elimination of the almost laughable "3 chances to make 2".....anyone who wants to get a perspective of the league's history should take a few minutes and do some "required reading"...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    We love it when Celtics fans tell Lakers history...no bias there.  Here are some (not all) of the scores from Lakers victories for the 5 Finals series won by the MN Lakers.  88-84, 94-74, 91-77, 110-95, 82-65, 102-89, 87-80, 90-75, 91-84, 87-80, 84-73, 81-67.  Hardly the 40-30 pace that the original post would have you believe.  In those 5 seasons, the Lakers scored over 100 points in 32 separate games.  More evidence that games were not played at a snail's pace.  And what footage do you always see for the pre-shot clock era?  That's right, it's footage of Cousy playing keep away.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    Boys, calm down now....I may be pushing 60 but I'm not losing it fellows....talking about the poor shooting percentages of the players from the 50's - 60's.....that is because they didn't dunk (usually close to 100% if you are strong enough)......want an example of skill sets?  .....in 1967 Wilt had a .68% FGP.....his best shot was the dunk...followed by the finger roll (which he called the "shovel shot")....he also shot the "fallaway (not fadeaway) jump shot....take his average of maybe 25 shots per game....15 were the dunk/shovel shot...probably a 90% shot).....the other 10 were not around the basket....do the math....if you shoot 68%....with two thirds of your shots inthe 90% range.......the other 10 shots go in at a very low average....(like 20-30%)....really.....go back and look at the stats.....if the NBA ever banished the dunk (like the NCAA did when Alcinder perfected the "sky hook") ......these guys would be shooting in the low to mid 40"s just like Baylor and West did... 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA : EliasB Duke shares a common bond with most other "Old Timers", believing that what happened back in the distant past set the standard for greatness. Commonly known as " The good old days" its a phase in life that most people encounter in their their senior years, including Laker fans. SeemsToMe
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    -

    Seems to me that piling one fallacy upon another fallacy does not equal the truth, just like one false assumption leads to another false assumption leads to a pattern of faulty thinking.

    And challenging someone's opinion based on the assumption that they are old and thus have flaws in their observations and intelligence is not only very low class, but there is a word for it akin to racism or sexism, I think it's called ageism.

    But Duke doesn't need me to come to his defense, the words you two wrote are damning enough of your character.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]Boys, calm down now....I may be pushing 60 but I'm not losing it fellows....talking about the poor shooting percentages of the players from the 50's - 60's.....that is because they didn't dunk (usually close to 100% if you are strong enough)......want an example of skill sets?  .....in 1967 Wilt had a .68% FGP.....his best shot was the dunk...followed by the finger roll (which he called the "shovel shot")....he also shot the "fallaway (not fadeaway) jump shot....take his average of maybe 25 shots per game....15 were the dunk/shovel shot...probably a 90% shot).....the other 10 were not around the basket....do the math....if you shoot 68%....with two thirds of your shots inthe 90% range.......the other 10 shots go in at a very low average....(like 20-30%)....really.....go back and look at the stats.....if the NBA ever banished the dunk (like the NCAA did when Alcinder perfected the "sky hook") ......these guys would be shooting in the low to mid 40"s just like Baylor and West did... 
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke4

    If your close enough to the rim to be able to throw the ball down through the hoop my guess would be that they would shoot real close to 100% on a up close layup of that nature.There's absolutely no comparison between the shooting ability of the players of the 50's and 60 vs the 80's onto the present. Hell, some players like Ray Allen have higher shooting percentages from 3 point range then some Hall Of Fame players of the 50's-60's had for lifetime averages.

    SeemsToMe
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA : - Seems to me that piling one fallacy upon another fallacy does not equal the truth, just like one false assumption leads to another false assumption leads to a pattern of faulty thinking. And challenging someone's opinion based on the assumption that they are old and thus have flaws in their observations and intelligence is not only very low class, but there is a word for it akin to racism or sexism, I think it's called ageism. But Duke doesn't need me to come to his defense, the words you two wrote are damning enough of your character.
    Posted by RajonRondowski[/QUOTE]

    Rajon

    Why don't you take a shot at addressing the validity of my statement rather than playing the "ageism" card ?

    SeemsToMe
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA

    In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics, Lakers and the Modern NBA : Duke4 If your close enough to the rim to be able to throw the ball down through the hoop my guess would be that they would shoot real close to 100% on a up close layup of that nature.There's absolutely no comparison between the shooting ability of the players of the 50's and 60 vs the 80's onto the present. Hell, some players like Ray Allen have higher shooting percentages from 3 point range then some Hall Of Fame players of the 50's-60's had for lifetime averages. SeemsToMe
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]
     
    Really? That's a rather bold statement. It just doesn't seem right to me. Let's do some research together. I'll stick with the guards.

    Ray Allen has a career field goal percentage of .421 3pt is .313 you're saying that hall of HOF players from the 50's and 60's have worse FG percentage than Ray's 3 point field goal percentage. Let's take a look.

    The following players have a better FG% than Ray Allen

    Walt Frazier .490 
    Oscar Robertson .485 
    Jerry West .474 
    Sam Jones .456
    Hal Greer .452
    Tom Gola .431
    Bill Sharman .426 
     

    These gentlemen have FG% below Ray Allens

    Bobby Wanzer .393
    Dick McGuire .389
    Bob Cousy .375
    Andy Phillip .368
    Bob Davies .364
    Slater Martin .364
    Al Gervi .359

    In fact I think it's safe to assume that no guard in the hall of fame who played in the 50's and 60's has a career FG% lower than .313

    It seems to me that maybe you should think before you type such an ill informed comment like you did.  





     

Share