I have seen the future of the NBA... - Detroit Pistons Fan Community

dba · #1 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 08:43 AM

LBJ: “We both tried to will our team to victory and, just like Dominique Wilkins, I ended up on the short end and the Celtics won again. I think the second round of the postseason, Game 7, these fans will finally have an opportunity to forget a little bit about what Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins did and remember what Paul and LeBron did. This will go down in history.”

Yeah, go down in history perhaps as the game that most typified the demise of the modern NBA. What incredible hubris. The only similarities between that game 7 and this one are the court size and the length of the game. Larry Bird in that game was the top scorer for the Celtics by only one point (McHale had 33). Three other Celtics scored in double figures, four Hawks beside ‘Nique were also in double figures. Yesterday only two other players in total, from both teams, scored more than ten.

This was not a game of high flying excellence, this was a game that so typifies the complete lack of fundamental basketball skills shown by today’s superstar players (and coaches, more on that below) that it will surely become iconic, not for what is good about the modern game, but for all that it lacks.

There was little defense played. Yes, perhaps a majority of the players who never bother actually tried to get into the passing lanes, but no one, other than perhaps Ben Wallace (more on that below too), actually defended. Still, even token efforts were enough to completely discombobulate the two offenses. The Celtics / Hawks game 7 was no defensive gem either (Hawks shot 57%, Celtics 61%), mostly because those players could hit wide open jump shots, which no one on either team yesterday could so. That’s not pressure, that’s not strong defense, that’s just bad offense, and bad fundamentals.

Offensive schemes were by and large omitted from yesterday’s game plan anyway. The few times LBJ and Brown allowed the Cavs to actually run plays, they were quite successful – a couple of open dunks by Ben Wallace, a couple of open jumpers from Z, some nice cuts by West. But, Brown treated his offensive sets as things to be used occasionally, to deflect attention from LBJ and his one on five drives time after time after time. At least this time the officials weren’t bailing James out every single drive (perhaps those days are over after the James and Wade officiating fiascos of the past several years?), but he still managed 19 free throws, mostly because no one on the Celtics can defend.

Brown doesn’t coach, he points LBJ towards one hoop or the other. But, at least he didn’t seem to be actively trying to throw the game, as Doc Rivers certainly seemed to be in the fourth. Despite Pierce seemingly able to get whatever he wanted, and shooting over 50%, the Celtics only manage to get him three shots in the fourth. Rather, they throw the ball into Garnett in the post against Ben Wallace time after time. At the best of times KG wouldn’t recognize a post move if he saw one, and against Ben isn’t the best of times. You could see the wheels turning in Doc’s head… “Gee, Wallace didn’t let him get a shot off that time. Huh. Let’s try again. Oh, he stopped him again, well, third time’s the charm. Man, that didn’t work either. What to do? I know, KG in the post!”

And the Cavs? When they missed a late shot and desperately needed to foul to stop the clock, only Ben Wallace had any notion of the time / situation in the game. He sprinted from under one hoop all the way down the floor, passing three other Cavs, to foul and stop the clock. LBJ was standing at the other end watching, no doubt chewing on his nails. That is a complete breakdown… of coaching.

Nice game from the announcers though. JVG was dead on a number of times, both pointing out fouls that were flagrant-one’s that weren’t called (both were right I thought), as well as pointing out LBJ travels, and his utter cluelessness on defense.

Bah humbug. I have seen the future of the NBA and it is bleak.

ggazoo69 · #2 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 09:13 AM

I agree with most of what you said, dba. The LeBron/Pierce show was pretty brutal. LeBron repeatedly would dribble up to the three-point line, spot the double team and then back the ball out to near mid-court to set up the clear out. He scored half their points and there was little semblance of an offense from the Cavs.

Going down to KG wasn't such a bad idea. KG is a decent FT shooter (80 percent); maybe they were hoping for some trips to the line. KG can also shoot over Big Ben, which he did a couple times.

Also, in fairness, Detroit's defense on LeBron last season was much worse than what the Celtics did yesterday.

But, you're dead on with your overall premise about where the NBA is going. It was unbelievably boring to watch most of that game. There was absolutely zero suspense for such a close game.

mikhail1973 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:25 PM

I wonder if it is also a West vs East issue. Seems like Western conference teams are more complete. Or possibly it is just bad management loading up roster with bad contracts and not being able to improve. But I have to agree, the game gets pretty weak.

dba · #4 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:35 PM

I think a lot has to do with players coming straight out of high school or to the league with minimal college experience and no real training in the fundamentals of the game.

I propose that every player who wants to play in the NBA has to spend two years in a development league. And that the development league has some unique rules...

- no dunks
- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets
- refs drilled on calling any and all traveling, carrying the ball, etc.
- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense
- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

round · #5 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dba

I think a lot has to do with players coming straight out of high school or to the league with minimal college experience and no real training in the fundamentals of the game.

I propose that every player who wants to play in the NBA has to spend two years in a development league. And that the development league has some unique rules...

- no dunks
- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets
- refs drilled on calling any and all traveling, carrying the ball, etc.
- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense
- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

I agree with most of what you say in theory.... making kids go to college for one year is a joke... they take a couple easy classes the first semester and don't even have to show up to a single class second semester while there playing....

I'd like to see the age requirement bumped up by a year... and add an option to go straight to the farm systems... change the draft so you retain rights while there at college/minor leagues and find some way that the kids in college can get paid.... say there salary goes into a trust fund that can't touch till after there 2 years are done?

To many kids start in the pro's and have to be taught the most basics of concepts... I commented on Howard last week, he's just a waste of a phyical master. if he had spent two years at a solid program learning to post up, they would be a far better team right now then they would have been againt us.

dba · #6 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by round

I agree with most of what you say in theory.... making kids go to college for one year is a joke... they take a couple easy classes the first semester and don't even have to show up to a single class second semester while there playing....

Hey, I'm out here in fantasy land anyway - it's all theoretical. But yeah, it isn't about college. It's not the responsibilty of colleges to teach budding NBA players how to play. They have enough trouble teaching kids to read and write.

Quote:

Originally Posted by round

I'd like to see the age requirement bumped up by a year... and add an option to go straight to the farm systems... change the draft so you retain rights while there at college/minor leagues and find some way that the kids in college can get paid.... say there salary goes into a trust fund that can't touch till after there 2 years are done?

This is off the top of my head, but I wonder how the league can get away with the age requirement they currently have. I suspect that if a player decided to challenge the restriction in court they would probably win. After all, it's not as if 18 year olds have not succeeded in the NBA before. It would seem pretty hard for the league to make a real argument that the job of player itself requires a certain age. (A farm system as you describe would get around the legal problems.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by round

To many kids start in the pro's and have to be taught the most basics of concepts... I commented on Howard last week, he's just a waste of a phyical master. if he had spent two years at a solid program learning to post up, they would be a far better team right now then they would have been againt us.

Part of the problem I think is that once players are earning millions (and being told how good they are), it's hard to get them to listen to coaching. Really, why would you? You need some system that puts everyone on a more level field and stresses learning.

TaShawn · #7 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:14 PM

By the way. How can rental car companies get away with the minimal 25 year age limit to rent a car? Has that never been challenged?

You have 24 year olds out there who own their own businesses, yet can't take a rental car when they travel on business?

I can see the age being 18 vs. 16, but 25 seems like blatent age discrimination. Is their any other product or service that has a similar restriction (besides alcohol)?

dba · #8 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:25 PM

Insurance is weird. I think the courts have tended to favor actuarial work that shows younger drivers have higher accident rates. And, there is no right written into law to rent a car. There are anti-discrimination laws about employment.

TaShawn · #9 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dba

Insurance is weird. I think the courts have tended to favor actuarial work that shows younger drivers have higher accident rates. And, there is no right written into law to rent a car. There are anti-discrimination laws about employment.

Could a rental car company choose to not rent to black people if they had higher accident rates? Obviously, the answer is no. I guess my question is, why can they discriminate with age when they can't with race, sex, or many other factors.

I would guess that the answer is that people under 25 have not banded together to challenge it... or there hasn't been an attorney who has taken up the class action suit yet.

dba · #10 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaShawn

Could a rental car company choose to not rent to black people if they had higher accident rates? Obviously, the answer is no. I guess my question is, why can they discriminate with age when they can't with race, sex, or many other factors.

I would guess that the answer is that people under 25 have not banded together to challenge it... or there hasn't been an attorney who has taken up the class action suit yet.

I've been reading a book by a UM scholar on the construction of rights and the arguments are pretty interesting. Race (and gender, national origin, etc.) is a special category that sort of over-rides other classifications regardless of whether they have some kind of validity or not. But, just because someone cannot discriminate on the basis of race doesn't mean that they can't discriminate on some other basis (as long as that basis doesn't tend to end up eliminating the same groups as would be excluded if using race).

For this it seems to me (with all of sixty or so pages of legal knowledge) you could argue that although the statistical stereotype is true (younger drivers have on average more accidents), it should not burden particular individuals who may or may not themselves have a true higher propensity to crash into someone. Given though that the precedent for granting or denying (or charging more) insurance coverage based on statistical stereotypes is pretty well established, you might have the deck stacked against you.