Tag Archives: New York Knicks

I’ve spoken to a number of people recently who tell me that they don’t enjoy watching the NBA anymore.  One person was telling me that the game isn’t played the way the Knicks of the early 70’s played it, which is the way it is supposed to be played.  A few people were telling me that it isn’t played the way the Celtics and Lakers of the 80’s played it, a few complained that it isn’t as good as it was when Reggie, Patrick, Michael and Hakeem were battling it out in the 90’s, and a few just sounded grouchy.  The point, though, is that a number of people aren’t feelin’ it the way I’m feelin’ it.

[AUTHOR’S DISCLAIMER:  The crew of people that I interact with on a daily basis is, I know, not necessarily reflective of the overall population.  An illustration of a typical conversation for me to have with a friend is a conversation that I had yesterday.  I said something about the hoops that was played on Monday night.  My friend responded by saying that he was watching WWE wrestling (Monday Night Raw) during the game I was talking about.  This led to a back-and-forth, which culminated in him arguing that The Undertaker would make a great power forward — kind of like The Birdman — and me conceding that the NBA’s ratings might improve if The Undertaker signed with an NBA team.  Yup, these are my friends.  But the point remains… a bunch of people are unhappy with the NBA.]

I wasn’t around to watch the Knicks of the early 70’s, so I can’t respond directly to the assertion that they played the game better than the teams play today.  But I watched plenty of hoops starting in the mid-80’s, and I know a thing or two about the history of the game.  At least enough to address the feeling that the game is getting worse.

For starters, I agree that something has gotten lost with the addition of more teams.  ‘Twas a time when there was no such thing as a Tuesday in February when a few games were being played between two lousy teams.  Now there are so many teams that there are bound to be some games that are no fun to watch. (Even if all the other teams in the NBA got better, the Knicks would still be the Knicks, guaranteeing at least 82 meaningless, uninteresting games every year).

But there’s a reason why the league expanded; at bottom, it’s a business.  When people like what it’s producing, it’s going to produce more.  Sure, it might get to a point where it overexpands (I would argue that it passed that point 2 or 3 teams ago), but you can’t expect the league to sit still if it thinks there are markets to be tapped into profitably.

I also agree that the best teams do not seem to be as good.  I doubt we’ll ever see a team like the ’86 Celtics, with 3 Hall-of-Famers in the frontcourt, 1 in the backcourt, AND BILL WALTON ON THE BENCH, going against the Lakers, with arguably the best PG ever, the league’s all-time leading scorer, AND JAMES WORTHY FILLING THE LANE.  When you add teams, you diminish the likelihood of any team accumulating that much talent.

But let’s not look at the past with rose-colored glasses.  When those Celtics and Lakers teams were dominating the league, the teams on the bottom were terrible.  Anyone remember the Jazz before Stockton and Malone?  The Kings in the sky blue uniforms?  The Nets before they drafted Derrick Coleman?  The Rockets before Olajuwon?  You don’t?  Neither do I.  That’s my point.  And I made that point without even mentioning the pre-Ewing Knicks — the team with Pat Cummings and Rory Sparrow in the starting lineup.

I’ll give one other point to the teams of yesteryear; they typically had guys who fit into our notions of the five different positions.  Kareem was a C, Magic was a PG, Byron was a SG, Worthy and Rambis were forwards.  That’s what a basketball team was supposed to look like.  And there was a harmony to it.  Today, many teams have a few guys who are “hybrids,” which sounds good in theory, but sometimes leads to something awful-looking.  Like the Golden State Warriors.  And nobody wants that.

But, again, let’s not look at the past with rose-colored glasses.  It’s true that the Lakers and Celtics of the ’80’s, or the Knicks of the early ’70’s, started 5 guys who each played one of the “5 positions.”  But, it’s also true that they started SGs who were 6’4” or smaller.  Good luck trying to pull that off in today’s game (unless your 6’4” SG happens to be named Dwyane Wade).

There’s much more to say on this topic, but I won’t try to cover too much in one posting.  The last thing I’ll say is that anyone who is down on today’s game should watch the Suns-Spurs series.  Watch Nash, Duncan, Manu, and Grant Hill, and then talk to me about whether today’s players aren’t playing the game the right way.

Which reminds me… I have a game to go watch.

Leave a Comment:

The last two entries have been about the stability of the NBA Playoffs on a year-to-year basis.  After making two entries about a topic that the average hoops fan finds to be moderately interesting AT BEST, a mere mortal might stop there, afraid that his readers would get bored and stop visiting his site.

But I’m no mere mortal.  So here is a potpouri of additional hoopservations based on the already-posted hoopservation that the teams in the playoffs hardly change from year to year.

1a.  Stockpiling lottery picks is no guarantee of success.  The Clippers, Wolves, Kings, Warriors, Pacers, and Knicks have been stockpiling lottery picks for years, and they all suck.  Oh, wait… the Knicks traded away a bunch of their lottery picks for overpriced scrubs, so they haven’t been stockpiling much of anything (except overpriced scrubs).  Nonetheless, the point remains the same: teams can’t expect a bunch of lottery picks to turn their fortunes around.  The system is set up for that to happen, but the system isn’t really working.

1b.  The way to get good through the draft is to find a superstar; one great draft is better than a bunch of pretty good ones.  Look at what happened to the Cavs after they got LeBron, the Nuggets after they got Carmelo, the Heat after they got D-Wade, the Lakers after they got Kobe, the Mavs after they got Dirk, the Hornets after they got CP3 (this year excepted because of injury), and the Magic after they got Howard.  Each of those teams turned their fortunes around with one pick much more quickly than the Clippers, Wolves, Kings, etc. have been able to turn things around with a bunch of picks.

1c.  Because a pick in the lottery is (i) a sought-after commodity, and (ii) not necessarily going to bring success, it is surprising that the picks are not traded more frequently.

1d.  At first glance, the emergence of the Thunder might render this hoopservation inaccurate, but that’s not the case.  The Thunder’s emergence does not prove that accumulating draft picks brings about success.  Rather, the Thunder’s emergence proves one of the very first hoopservations I made on this blog, arguing that,  when a team has a real star player who is healthy for a full season, that team will almost certainly make the playoffs.  Kevin Durant emerged as a star this year; that’s why the Thunder is in the playoffs.

2.  Just like stockpiling draft picks isn’t necessarily enough to lead to the playoffs, being good enough to make the playoffs for multiple years in a row doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to win the championship if you just keep trying.  In other words, if a team is thinking that it’s “almost there,” and can rely on acquired experience – and maybe a bit of tinkering at the edges of the roster – to get over the hump, that team is wrong.

3. There are guys in this league who are not good enough to be one of the two best players on a real contender, but are good enough to start on a championship team, and possibly even to be the final piece that makes a very good team great.  I’m talkin’ ‘bout guys like Danny Granger, Corey Maggette, Tayshaun Prince, and Hedo Turkoglu.

No lousy team should have any guys of this caliber on their rosters, unless that guy is under 25 and still improving (none of the guys mentioned is under 25 and still improving).  Given their salaries (which tend to be high), and the amount of good years they have left (3-5), they do not offer anything to a team that has a long way to go to get better.  Why not trade them for developing players and/or draft picks?

4.  If all of the above is true, then there should be many more trades than there are.  I understand that the rules about trades are complicated, and a team can’t just trade a guy like Corey Maggette for a young dude and a draft pick because of salary considerations, but, still… conceptually, bad teams need to be more aggressive about getting younger and further under the cap, and good teams need to be more aggressive about adding the final pieces to their puzzles.  If you’re on board with the concept, then you’ll figure out how to make trades work; throw in cash considerations, or additional draft picks, or young guys from the end of your bench.  Whatever.  Just don’t be a bad team overpaying Corey Maggette and hoping to get better through the lottery, or a pretty good team that’s afraid to make the move that might put you over the top.

Leave a Comment: