- Taylor Swift – Style – Qwanny’s Version | Q3 Media Super Bowl Ad
- 10 Greatest Wide Receivers that NEVER Won a Super Bowl
- 10 Best Christmas Day Performances in NBA History
- The Beast: The Final Fight | Documentary | A Qwality Film
- The Beast: The Final Fight Trailer
- The Crush Podcast: Broncos Lose Again, Kelce the Clout Chaser
- Qwality Sports: Ben Gordon Interview, Talks Time in NBA and His Workout Mindset
- AFC South Sports Betting Preview
- UFC London Aspinall vs Blaydes
- Take A Guess: The Sports Trivia Game Show Hosted by DeQwan Young | Episode 29
Old School vs. New School NBA
- Updated: December 12, 2016
After a quick back-and-forth the other day on Twitter, I was forced to do some thinking. The gist of the encounter was basically someone I follow stated that if you take rings out of the conversation, Chris Paul is the best (not greatest) but best PG to ever play. I retweeted and responded to said tweet asking if that meant he thought CP3 was a better player than Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson, the two players I believe to be unequivocally both the best and greatest PGs to ever live. His response was that it would depend on the team around them who he’d rather have between Magic and CP3 but that he didn’t even consider Oscar to be a top 3 PG because of the era he played in. He stated things like there was no record of turnovers so we don’t know how efficient he was or that there was only 6-8 teams in the NBA the majority of his career so that wasn’t a full league. As if playing in an 8-team league is easier than playing in a 30-team league. And then that got me thinking. It’s an argument that I’ve heard my entire life when debating old school players vs new school. So many harp at the fact there were only 8 teams as if that made it easier. Well, for anyone that thinks playing in an 8-team league is easier than playing in a 30-team one, I’d challenge you to do basic math with me. Before we go any further, I have to say his notion that Oscar played the majority of his career in an 6-8 team league is simply inaccurate considering the last season there were 8 or less teams in the NBA was the 1960-61 season which was Oscar’s rookie season. But we are talking about Twitter, which is the place where emotion-driven opinions and bravado rule the day, while facts and conventional wisdom fall by the wayside.
But let’s get into what this article is really about. And that’s analyzing whether or not it was more or less difficult to win in the ’60s than it is now. Let’s start with the regular season. In the 1961 NBA season (we’ll use that season as an outlier since it was the last year the NBA had 8 teams), the NBA regular season schedule was 75 games vs. the 82 games they play now. That’s not really a big deal. The big deal for me is that a league of 8 teams had to play 75 games. The best team in the NBA that season was the Boston Celtics. They went 57-22 (722%) and won the NBA championship that year. Last season in the 2016 season the Golden State Warriors were the best team during the regular season. They went 73-9 (890%) and came within a game and some unlucky injuries and suspensions of winning their championship (but that’s a subject for another time). [Editor’s note – Kevin: The Warriors blew a 3-1 lead.] Now I can see people looking at those comparisons alone saying “see the modern NBA team won more games.” Great – you can count, but if that’s all you took from that comparison, then you’re not looking deep enough. So let’s dig a little deeper. In the 1961 season, the best team in the opposing conference, and the team that would meet the Celtics in the NBA finals, was the St. Louis Hawks. The Hawks finished with a record of 51-28 (646). In the 2016 season, the Cavs were the best team in the opposing conference. They finished with a record of 57-25 (695%). So you may be wondering at this point “what is he getting at?” Well it’s simple: math is what I’m getting at. The Golden State Warriors and the Cavs played twice in the regular season. Out of 82 games, the Warriors had to play the team they met in the finals a whopping 0.025% of their entire schedule. The Celtics on the other hand had to play the Hawks, the team they met in the finals, 10 times in the regular season. That’s 13% of their schedule against the opposing conference champ. And if that’s not tough enough for you, the Celtics also had to play the 2nd-best team in their conference, which was Wilt Chamberlain‘s Philadelphia Warriors, 13 times. That’s 17% of their schedule against the 2nd-best team in their conference. As opposed to the Warriors who only had to play the Spurs 4 times, which accounted for only 0.49% of their schedule. So what does this all amount to? That, at least in the regular season, it was WAY HARDER to win in the ’60s than it is now. People have the notion that more teams equals more competitive. In actuality, more teams means more watered down. Imagine the Warriors last season having to play the Spurs and Cavs a combined 30 times which would be the equivalent of what the Celtics had to do in 1961. I’m sure they still have a good record but they damn sure wouldn’t have won 73 games.
Now before everyone gets all upset, I’m in no way saying the NBA was better back then or that the players were better. Anyone with eyes can see that the game has evolved for the better and that, thanks to advances in training, equipment, etc., players of today are more talented than back then. This article is aimed only at the notion that it was easier for those teams to win than it is for teams to win now. I’m simply making the case that it’s mathematically impossible for it to be harder to win now than it was back then. Even if you want to say what about the playoffs. Yes, it’s true they only had 2 rounds that year compared to 4 rounds now. My retort to that would be their regular season was a playoff. And if you really think about it, the real NBA playoffs don’t start till the conference finals anyway (or the Finals in the case of the Cavs). You look at the last NBA season and 4 teams (Cavs, Warriors, Thunder, and Spurs) were the only teams with a real shot to win a title. How is that any different than in 1963 when you had the Celtics, Lakers, Hawks, and Royals, which is 4 teams out of 9 as title contenders? And furthermore, how is a NBA where 44% of the league is good enough to win a title less competitive than a league where only 12% of the teams are good enough to win a title. Now some might retort that the Celtics were so much better than everyone. Well the team they played in the Finals was a lot closer to them in terms of wins than the Cavs were to Golden State. Also, the Celtics and Hawks both had 3 all-stars during the 1961 season and both had 1 elite player: Russell for the Celtics and Petit for the Hawks. So Boston was in no way vastly superior to the Hawks in terms of firepower. Unlike a certain super team that is taking the league by storm in 2017 (but again a subject for another day).
In closing, yeah the NBA is a lot better now and more fun to watch. But the argument that it’s somehow more competitive OVERALL is simply wrong. The NBA regular season was much more interesting and competitive in the 50s and 60s than it has been since the league expanded to well over 20 and now 30 teams. I don’t care how you slice it, there isn’t anything hard about LeBron James and the Cavs getting to play nearly 25% of their games against the Nets, Sixers, Magic, Heat, and Wizards.
One Comment