How would this 1980s team do against modern teams

[Owly]

Modern fans have some negative Ideas about the 1980s as if was a league of Kyle Macys and Gregg Dreilings, Clint Richardsons and Mike Bantoms.

Whilst "a league full of ..." anyone, at a literal level is an odd concept I suspect the intent here is to say that people are underrating the league. Macy, then, seems an odd choice as depending on your metric of choice, he seems an above average player.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Modern fans have some negative Ideas about the 1980s as if was a league of Kyle Macys and Gregg Dreilings, Clint Richardsons and Mike Bantoms.

Whilst "a league full of ..." anyone, at a literal level is an odd concept I suspect the intent here is to say that people are underrating the league. Macy, then, seems an odd choice as depending on your metric of choice, he seems an above average player.

Macy was relatively unathletic which is one of the things players of previous eras get accused of. Macy had some skill. Mike Bantom waa probably above average and Clint Richardson was OK.

[penbeast0]

The Bucks of that year were a 50 win team, by record the 4th best team in the league behind the 3 superteams (Boston, LA, Philly). Last year's champion Bucks would start worse, end better than that. Would they be able to take it to the next level in the playoffs and play with Boston, LA, and Philly in those teams' time given only one season of adjustment? That's the next question.

Maybe but I wouldn't consider it a safe bet.

[tsherkin]

The Bucks of that year were a 50 win team, by record the 4th best team in the league behind the 3 superteams (Boston, LA, Philly). Last year's champion Bucks would start worse, end better than that. Would they be able to take it to the next level in the playoffs and play with Boston, LA, and Philly in those teams' time given only one season of adjustment? That's the next question.

Maybe but I wouldn't consider it a safe bet.

Yeah, that would be a challenge, particularly on that timeline. I don't think even a full season would be enough for them to totally adapt to the difference in the officiating, though their 3pt attack and advanced screen game would certainly help. And Giannis would be a monster in any era, particularly in the faster eras of the league. But that's a big, big, big issue to overcome.

[countryboy667]

First rule the 1980s team only gets 2 points if they shoot a 3 but the modern team gets 3 points for 3s.

You have to buff the 80s players here, not nerf them. If they get 4 points for a 3 I might consider it...

They shot the 3s so poorly that you would have to give them 4 points to get them to shoot 3s.

Bird said that nobody practiced 3s because they thought the 3 was a useless gimmick. Taking away the 3 from these guys that shot 3s horribly on the rare occasion that they did shoot 3s does not really hurt the 1982 Lakers or the 1984 Celics.

The 1980s coaches seriously screwed up by not understanding the value of 3s.

But i did not want to bring in projected imaginary 3 point shooting that they 1980s players should have been doing. Bird had a bad 3 point shooting year in 1984 but even when Bird was shooting 3s at 40% he was not shooting many 3s. Bird should have kept on shooting more 3s until defenses stopped him. Bird coukd have shot more 3s because defenses were not stopping him, By 1987 Cooper waa shooting 3s well. By 1990 Magic had become a 3 point shooter. So Cooper, Magic and Bird proved that they were potential 3 point shooters.

There were more guys in the 80s and even earlier decades who had three-point range--Jerry Lucas, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Calvin Murphy, David Thompson and Jerry West come to my mind, and there were others as well. But without that extra point awarded, it was just a bad percentage shot attempted only in desperation. And even in those cases where they did have the three point rule, they didn't actually practice it to improve their %--it was still largely considered a showboat junk desperation shot.

[tsherkin]

There were more guys in the 80s and even earlier decades who had three-point range--Jerry Lucas, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Calvin Murphy, David Thompson and Jerry West come to my mind, and there were others as well. But without that extra point awarded, it was just a bad percentage shot attempted only in desperation. And even in those cases where they did have the three point rule, they didn't actually practice it to improve their %--it was still largely considered a showboat junk desperation shot.

There were definitely guys who COULD have done it. They just didn't, and they were not given incentive to do so. It's pretty reasonable to suggest that given enough time and incentive, there would have been plenty of guys from before who could have developed the shot. That isn't the point of the thread, but it's fair to note as an aside.

[countryboy667]

There were more guys in the 80s and even earlier decades who had three-point range--Jerry Lucas, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Calvin Murphy, David Thompson and Jerry West come to my mind, and there were others as well. But without that extra point awarded, it was just a bad percentage shot attempted only in desperation. And even in those cases where they did have the three point rule, they didn't actually practice it to improve their %--it was still largely considered a showboat junk desperation shot.

There were definitely guys who COULD have done it. They just didn't, and they were not given incentive to do so. It's pretty reasonable to suggest that given enough time and incentive, there would have been plenty of guys from before who could have developed the shot. That isn't the point of the thread, but it's fair to note as an aside.

My memory is hazy on this, and couldn't find anything to back it up, but was Bill Bradley one who might have developed genuine three point range in this era? Those hazy memories seem to have remembrances of "Dollar Bill" launching and hitting some very long twos...or am I mistaken and thinking of someone else?

[tsherkin]

My memory is hazy on this, and couldn't find anything to back it up, but was Bill Bradley one who might have developed genuine three point range in this era? Those hazy memories seem to have remembrances of "Dollar Bill" launching and hitting some very long twos...or am I mistaken and thinking of someone else?

I believe you are correct.

[migya]

The Bucks of that year were a 50 win team, by record the 4th best team in the league behind the 3 superteams (Boston, LA, Philly). Last year's champion Bucks would start worse, end better than that. Would they be able to take it to the next level in the playoffs and play with Boston, LA, and Philly in those teams' time given only one season of adjustment? That's the next question.

Maybe but I wouldn't consider it a safe bet.

Yeah, that would be a challenge, particularly on that timeline. I don't think even a full season would be enough for them to totally adapt to the difference in the officiating, though their 3pt attack and advanced screen game would certainly help. And Giannis would be a monster in any era, particularly in the faster eras of the league. But that's a big, big, big issue to overcome.

Changes the whole setting, the physicality and what players were able to do contact wise. Players can't focus on their "skills" because they know they are going to get bumped many times and it gets on their mind. You have to focus on that contact to not get injured so easily.

[70sFan]

The Bucks of that year were a 50 win team, by record the 4th best team in the league behind the 3 superteams (Boston, LA, Philly). Last year's champion Bucks would start worse, end better than that. Would they be able to take it to the next level in the playoffs and play with Boston, LA, and Philly in those teams' time given only one season of adjustment? That's the next question.

Maybe but I wouldn't consider it a safe bet.

Yeah, that would be a challenge, particularly on that timeline. I don't think even a full season would be enough for them to totally adapt to the difference in the officiating, though their 3pt attack and advanced screen game would certainly help. And Giannis would be a monster in any era, particularly in the faster eras of the league. But that's a big, big, big issue to overcome.

Changes the whole setting, the physicality and what players were able to do contact wise. Players can't focus on their "skills" because they know they are going to get bumped many times and it gets on their mind. You have to focus on that contact to not get injured so easily.

Even in sports that are significantly more physical than 1990s basketball (like rugby), players develop very broad skillset required to play. The idea that 1980s basketball is closer to rugby than 2020s basketball is highly questionable.

[MyUniBroDavis]

First rule the 1980s team only gets 2 points if they shoot a 3 but the modern team gets 3 points for 3s.
The 1982 Lakers basically could not shoot 3s and did not shoot 3s.
Some Lakers eventually became 3 point shooter but that irrelevant for this thread.
1984 Celtics barely shot 3s.


I am taking 1982 Lakers because they had an increasable fast break and 1984 Celtics because the won the 1984 championship by dominating the Lakers in the offensive boards-

From the 1982 Lakers:

Kareem, Mcadoo, Wilkes, Cooper, Magic, Norm Nixon

From the 1984 Celtics:

Parish, McHale, Bird, Cedric Maxwell, Dennis Johnson, Gerald Henderson.


They certainly are deep but does modern 3 point shooting or modern players beat them?

They don’t win a single game without the three point line

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

First rule the 1980s team only gets 2 points if they shoot a 3 but the modern team gets 3 points for 3s.
The 1982 Lakers basically could not shoot 3s and did not shoot 3s.
Some Lakers eventually became 3 point shooter but that irrelevant for this thread.
1984 Celtics barely shot 3s.


I am taking 1982 Lakers because they had an increasable fast break and 1984 Celtics because the won the 1984 championship by dominating the Lakers in the offensive boards-

From the 1982 Lakers:

Kareem, Mcadoo, Wilkes, Cooper, Magic, Norm Nixon

From the 1984 Celtics:

Parish, McHale, Bird, Cedric Maxwell, Dennis Johnson, Gerald Henderson.


They certainly are deep but does modern 3 point shooting or modern players beat them?

They don’t win a single game without the three point line

Then they could not win with the 3 point line because they could not shoot 3s.

The team is more talented and deeper than any modern team but you are saying that is not good enougg.

What iff I tack peak Steph Curry onto Norm Nixon and peak Draymond onto Magic and peak Klay onto Wilks and 1987 Bird who could shoot 3s onto 1984 Bird each of these players seamlessly combining the best qualities of both players. Draymond knows how to pass to Klay and Curry and although Draymond is very good at running an offense Magic is better. We still keep the no 3 point shooting rule for the other players but let these 4 combination players shoot 3s. And we give this team the ability to play modern defense like the Steve Kerr Warriors at their best. The 1980s team has the athleticism to play defense like the modern Warriors and I am giving the mental understanding. Isn’t that could enough for the modified team to sweep any modern team they face in a modern series or do you think they need more than 4 three point shooters or disagree with my thinking that the 1982 Lakers 1984 Celtics are too good and too deep for any modern team to handle?

[tsherkin]

Changes the whole setting, the physicality and what players were able to do contact wise. Players can't focus on their "skills" because they know they are going to get bumped many times and it gets on their mind. You have to focus on that contact to not get injured so easily.

Not nearly as much as you seem to think. This physicality was not on display every possession, or even most possessions of most games. It tends to be specifically related to how a couple of teams played, and then some odd one-off possessions here and there in a game, particularly a close game or in the playoffs. Like, you can watch plenty of games from the 80s and 90s and see nothing but a track meet and a bunch of jump shooting, then the odd poster dunk here and there. The physicality of the league is played up well past the point of accuracy until you get into specific matchups like DET/CHI, some of Boston's postseasons and then the very late 90s and early 2000s...

[penbeast0]

My memory is hazy on this, and couldn't find anything to back it up, but was Bill Bradley one who might have developed genuine three point range in this era? Those hazy memories seem to have remembrances of "Dollar Bill" launching and hitting some very long twos...or am I mistaken and thinking of someone else?

The problem was that in that era, they were bad shots. There were guys even then that specialized in what today would the corner 3, either regularly shooting from that corner or using the threat of it to let them drive the baseline. Jack Marin used to do that for the Bullets.

[penbeast0]

Changes the whole setting, the physicality and what players were able to do contact wise. Players can't focus on their "skills" because they know they are going to get bumped many times and it gets on their mind. You have to focus on that contact to not get injured so easily.

Not nearly as much as you seem to think. This physicality was not on display every possession, or even most possessions of most games. It tends to be specifically related to how a couple of teams played, and then some odd one-off possessions here and there in a game, particularly a close game or in the playoffs. Like, you can watch plenty of games from the 80s and 90s and see nothing but a track meet and a bunch of jump shooting, then the odd poster dunk here and there. The physicality of the league is played up well past the point of accuracy until you get into specific matchups like DET/CHI, some of Boston's postseasons and then the very late 90s and early 2000s...

It isn't the amount of physicality, it's the way it is called that has changed the way people shoot. It used to be a defender could go straight up and if the offensive player jumped into him it was an offensive foul. That would negate half Harden's points over the last 10 years

[tsherkin]

It isn't the amount of physicality, it's the way it is called that has changed the way people shoot. It used to be a defender could go straight up and if the offensive player jumped into him it was an offensive foul. That would negate half Harden's points over the last 10 years

That is a separate subject from what I was responding to, though. We've already agreed on the idea that the officiating would change things, but people like migya keep wanting to play up the physicality as if everyone was getting their teeth smashed out on alternating possessions, and it's wearisome, you know?

Yeah, someone as extreme as Harden would look different in the earlier eras. Perhaps not as different as some like to think, though. Reggie Miller and Karl Malone were sociopathic pricks about shamming for fouls in the mid/late 90s, and it worked just fine. SOME of it was from rep, but everyone and their mom knew that it wasn't a foul when THEY kicked YOU while fading AWAY from you, but they got the call anyway. And coaches were always telling players to "initiate contact." Paul Pierce was especially good at this. What we have now is actually an extension of the coaching mantras of the time, it just didn't go the way everyone wanted it to, heh.

You're right, though, as we've already agreed. Many players would be challenged for a while by the changes in how dribbling and fouls were officiated in earlier eras. IT took a couple decades of slow progress and then Allen Iverson outright cheating every game and the league discovering that people enjoyed watching that skillset before carrying/palming violations were called differently on the regular (also with the rise of And-1's brief popularity), etc. I don't contest that at all.

[MyUniBroDavis]

First rule the 1980s team only gets 2 points if they shoot a 3 but the modern team gets 3 points for 3s.
The 1982 Lakers basically could not shoot 3s and did not shoot 3s.
Some Lakers eventually became 3 point shooter but that irrelevant for this thread.
1984 Celtics barely shot 3s.


I am taking 1982 Lakers because they had an increasable fast break and 1984 Celtics because the won the 1984 championship by dominating the Lakers in the offensive boards-

From the 1982 Lakers:

Kareem, Mcadoo, Wilkes, Cooper, Magic, Norm Nixon

From the 1984 Celtics:

Parish, McHale, Bird, Cedric Maxwell, Dennis Johnson, Gerald Henderson.


They certainly are deep but does modern 3 point shooting or modern players beat them?

They don’t win a single game without the three point line

Then they could not win with the 3 point line because they could not shoot 3s.

The team is more talented and deeper than any modern team but you are saying that is not good enougg.

What iff I tack peak Steph Curry onto Norm Nixon and peak Draymond onto Magic and peak Klay onto Wilks and 1987 Bird who could shoot 3s onto 1984 Bird each of these players seamlessly combining the best qualities of both players. Draymond knows how to pass to Klay and Curry and although Draymond is very good at running an offense Magic is better. We still keep the no 3 point shooting rule for the other players but let these 4 combination players shoot 3s. And we give this team the ability to play modern defense like the Steve Kerr Warriors at their best. The 1980s team has the athleticism to play defense like the modern Warriors and I am giving the mental understanding. Isn’t that could enough for the modified team to sweep any modern team they face in a modern series or do you think they need more than 4 three point shooters or disagree with my thinking that the 1982 Lakers 1984 Celtics are too good and too deep for any modern team to handle?

The Warriors without a three point line get swept by the hornets lol idk what you’re tryna do here