you may have gone through the 20+ responses to the previous posts, and noted a little thread about the knicks and how they "ruined the nba"
upon further review...
only in the 00-01 season did the knicks average under 90pts a game (allowed and scored). every other year (i looked from early 90s to 2001-02) they were in the mid90s in both allowed and scored. the entire eastern conference and the spurs score in the 80s regularly now (a seeming pre-requisite for crappy basketball), less than the knicks scored or allowed in 01-02! so, chad, thad, and myself were probably wrong in blaming the knicks, though all of us clearly remember the epic knicks-heat games of the past few years that have just purely sucked (since riley was a HEAT coach, not with the knicks). last year that riley was with the knicks was 94-95, and his team averaged 98 ppg, and gave up 95 ppg.
in conclusion, i blame drafting unproven egotistical high school ballers and underclassmen that can't make a jump shot. it ain't the knicks fault, i guess its garnett's and kobe's (and t-mac's). ironic, eh? the biggest stars now (other than the big fundamental, timmy d) have led to stupid drafting practices that have led to the nba sucking (imo). perhaps the league will realize this and (even informally) stop drafting hs players and freshmen/sophs. let's face it - in general they just aren't ready
why we are all idiots
1358-june13-2003
comments
re: look closer, friend
from: thad (2003-06-13 15:27:38)
did you completely miss 98-99 season? the knicks averaged 86.4 pts, and gave up 85.4 pts.
anyway, the point is that being in the mid90s for points used to not be good. during the 1980s every team in the NBA averaged more than 100 points per game, and the good ones averaged more than 110 ppg.
for example, the 88-89 knicks averaged 116.7 ppg, while giving up 112.9 ppg. the 90-91 bulls averaged 110.0 ppg and gave up 101.0. the 81-82 nuggets scored 126.5 ppg and surrendered 126.0!
if you go to basketballreference.com and look at season stats for any team that was around in both the 1980s and 1990s, you can see a sharp drop in points per game right around the 1993/1994/1995 era. this era was also the heyday of pat riley's knicks.
nowadays, it is an extremely rare occasion if both teams score over 100 points. i would be quite surprised if more than 5 teams averaged more than 100 this year.
probably, we should blame pat riley more than anyone, as he instilled this ugly style in two different franchises. however, the knicks were first and thus i blame them.
certainly all the young, unproven, raw, unpolished guys in the nba now haven't helped the situation, but i yearn for the days when every game was 120-116 without having to take 3 overtimes. especially since i don't think i appreciated it at the time, cause i was too damn young.
re: dude
from: niv (2003-06-13 15:39:34)
120-116 = no defense. seriously, who in the mid 80s could guard kobe or t-mac (ripping off page2)? who could guard shaq? gimme a break.
i'm more than willing to blame pat riley for everything bad ever though. including magic getting AIDS....
re: also...
from: niv (2003-06-13 15:52:33)
98-99 never happened. except it did, and the spurs beat the knicks in the finals. so let's see...
the knicks were 27-23 that year, 6 games out of first, and the friggin 8 seed in the playoffs. spurs only averaged 92 ppg, and gave up 84. to be fair, the lakers scored 99 ppg and gave up 96. so, teams were still capable of scoring.
however
the two best teams in the east (magic, heat) both averaged 89ppg - showing the east as a defensive beast. or you can argue that it just wasn't very good. either way, this one year of low knicks scoring was conference-wide + the spurs - which is something. however, the spurs had a 8ppg difference, unlike everyone else in the league, who was closer to 3-4. so...
lets look at the knicks.
2/15/1999 Detroit Pistons 78 - 69 3 - 2
2/16/1999 Toronto Raptors 95 - 85 4 - 2
2/18/1999 at Cleveland Cavaliers 74 - 98 4 - 3
2/19/1999 at Philadelphia 76ers 78 - 67 5 - 3
2/21/1999 Chicago Bulls 79 - 63 6 - 3
2/23/1999 New Jersey Nets 82 - 74 7 - 3
2/25/1999 Minnesota Timberwolves 115 - 113 8 - 3
look at that stretch of offense. we're talkin scoring in the 70s except twice, when they posted an average 95 and a ridiculous 115. i have an explanation for this. its pretty obvious
look at the date of the last game. 2/25. look at the record. 8-3. strike-shortened season
breaks everything. it kind of explains why offense sucked this year - not enough practice, so the easiest way to win was to pack it in - since no one could play team offense since no one really had an offseason to practice and become a team. games with high scores were due to one or two superstars, not a good team performance (ahem, yes, i am going back on my denouncement of the 80s, since there was good team ball then, or thats the impression i get at least). so maybe the players strike + new agreement + young players that don't wanna learn the team game now because of the strike which taught us that nobody needs to play a team game to go far in the playoffs = bad state of the nba.
maybe i should make a sports commentary page and stop talking about my boring life.
re:
from: b (2003-06-13 15:56:32)
i thank niv for making the informative post about the knicks and proving that you all weren't totally correct in your accustions and claims. i'd like to point out that, with their 'thug ball' style, the knicks became the first 8th seed to make it to the finals in 99. that's quite an accomplishment (yeah, yeah niv i know they lost to your spurs).
i think people should just be quiet and quit whining so much. i'm sick of reading articles or hearing comments about how the style of play in the nba finals is so awful, disgraceful, and low-scoring. like coach scott said, this is a different style of basketball...defensive. sure i admit that the shooting has been quite pitiful because the shots that i have seen the nets make during the season and their playoffs run just aren't going down. i say just try to appreciate the game for what it is no matter what style it's played in. is a flashy, cocky kobe-type player needed all the time?
and each sport has times when its ratings are down. (thad, you think football's ratings haven't gone down? the average person only appreciates high scoring games in that sport as well). two defensive teams pitted against one another is not accepted. this i partly attribute to society's need of instant gratification. people need and expect quick results. maybe patience is becoming a lost virtue...
enjoy game 5.
re: football
from: niv (2003-06-13 16:11:49)
don't say bad things about our national pasttime. football has been going up in every single way measurable. even ratings. the nfl has succeeded where every other professional league (outside of the mls) has failed. they make more money every year, they get better ratings, and the league's more interesting. god i love football
re: niv will suffer my wrath, and the collective wrath
from: chad (2003-06-15 01:08:19)
because you called footable our national pasttime! what nation is that? Texas? Well, buddy, Texas isn't a nation anymore, its just a crappy state, no better than oregon. Baseball is the national pasttime of America. Hockey is the national pasttime of Canada. Soccer is the national pasttime of everyone else. Football is a sport people like.
Also, people who are defending the spurs and nets and their style of basketball: I hope you watched game five. Defense was not bad, offense was atrocious. Missed open looks, bad passes, errant fast breaks. That was bad bad bad basketball. I was packing up to go home during the game, would look away for like 5 minutes, and ask my friend what I missed. "Spurs hit a free throw." What a crappy game. And yet the Steve Kerr-Robert Horry Axis of Winning returned. They have a combined 9 consecutive titles (Rockets x2, Bulls x3, Spurs, Lakers x3) and Kerr is about to even up the count at 5 a piece. Which reminds me. Assuming Horry is a Laker and Kerr a Spur in 2003-04, any reason to believe one of them won't get a sixth ring, making them as prolific winners as MJ? just a thought...
re: i hate chad
from: niv (2003-06-16 09:55:07)
the cavs suck. i cannot emphasize this enough. therefore, saying "what a crappy game" is silly, cuz your team will never be in that position.
also, thad, birgit, chad, this is an interesting discussion as to why the NHL isn't doing well.
also, chad says no one would read his silly posts if i made him put them in the forum cuz no one reads the forum. i'd like to point out the circular nature of that argument, as if people started posting in the damn forums, other people would start going there. start the chain, chad.
re: also...
the heat really really suck. shoulda blamed them first... god, who averages 86ppg a season?