Why don’t former NBA champions like the modern NBA?

Between fans, NBA players and insiders, incessant disputes flare up daily on the comparison between present and past. Touching on two aspects in particular: the GOAT debate, i.e. the popular election of the best ever (on which we gladly gloss over); and the reasons why, using expressions in fashion in recent times, “the NBA has become a circus” in which “it no longer defends itself”.

Arguments of this kind are the order of the day on blogs and social networks, in the basketball field and not. Specifically, however, it is species that are often great players of the past to shoot zero on the generations to which they have passed the baton. Shaquille O’Nealfor example, said that the‘Nba “was already getting soft” when he arrived in ’92, but that “today it’s really too soft”; and before him, an infinite number of exponents of the 80s – from Isiah Thomas to Maxwell, from Erving to Barkley – defined the basketball of the past as “the real NBA”.

Gilbert Arenas, star of the beginning of the millennium, commented on this current of thought bluntly: bullshit. “Was the level higher? Just say it, stop it. You couldn’t even compete with the players of today: you are glorifying what today would all be fouls, not good defenses. You say you would have limited LeBron if he had played in your era. Have you been drinking by any chance?”.

Donovan Mitchell recently said he was annoyed by the soft expression, “used only because we don’t fight on the pitch”. “Look at how they treated Jordan,” explained Bam Adebayo, “should we go back to playing like this?”. Without forgetting that the constant raising of standards concerns every sport, inexorably, you can go on calmly without worrying about what is more and less enjoyable, and without necessarily comparing different eras. It is more interesting, however, to understand how we got here.

The foundations of today’s controversy against the NBA

It’s no mystery that the NBA has long chosen to reduce the leeway for defenses, limiting the possibility of physically disturbing ball handlers with the introduction of new rules. In addition to injury prevention, the intention of the league is to favor the freedom of action of the attackers, and therefore a more spectacular game, which enhances talent more, punctuated by a higher pace. As also confirmed by the recent introduction of the take foul rule.

The technical context

A little zapping on YouTube is enough to see how today’s game and that of the 80s are essentially two different sports, with distorted technical and tactical paradigms. Among the many factors that have contributed to the transformation, three macro-categories can be identified:

• scientific and analytical progress (new training methodologies, greater understanding of the game and tactical preparation, and so on)
• the raising of physical and athletic standards (fruit of the above progress, with the support of technology)
• the expansion of spaces on the field (favored by an increasingly massive and varied use of three-point shooting)

The landscape that emerges is unquestionably less comfortable for defenders, called today to preside over portions of the field at the limits of the prohibitive, with less time and tools available. It should come as no surprise then that, despite the increased mobility of players and their adaptation to the era of ultra-versatility, containing attacks has become much more complicated.

The numbers of the current NBA

The logical consequence of all this is the inflated numbers we are now getting used to. At team level, as evidenced by the 350 points of Kings-Clippers last week, and above all individually. In fact, in the four months of the season, over 140 quarantelli and 20 cinquecentilli were recorded, with two exploits over 70.

Although this has been a trend that has been evident for some time, it is often precisely such performances that drag the defenses into the dock. Where, however, in addition to the previous arguments, the constant increase in talent in the league should be taken into consideration, the result of a scouting more and more widespread, and the greater diffusion of systems centered on game mega-creators.

Putting aside preconceptions and understanding the direction the NBA is taking is the key to embracing change and (trying to) enjoy the show. “Today Jordan would average 40 points,” says Jeff Van Gundy. He may be right, but faced with a league that attracts and exalts talent more and more, are we sure that things were better when things were worse?