Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:02 pm
I still like to watch any of the Bulls' games, especally from their 1996 run. Or from their first championship against the Lakers. Or any of the Olajuwon games. Damn, 90's were just so incredibly fun. You had ill perimeter players who played suffocating defense, D was just so tougher in psychical (I hate the no handchecking rule) and there was plethora of quality big men who could do just about anything. Today's NBA lacks D, penetration is too easy and high scoring guards are vastly overrated. VC, Iverson, Wade and others would get killed in the 90's. Some teams that are contenders nowadays (Dallas, Miami, Phoenix) would be worthless back then.
Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:02 am
VanK wrote:Iverson, Wade and others would get killed in the 90's
I doubt it. Iverson and Wade's game is that they both like to go strong to the hole even if they get banged or hacked. They will still play the way they play even with the intense D back then. They can thrive in the 90's game. Also, don't forget that AI was drafted in '96, so AI is familiar with the style of the 90's game.
Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:51 am
My oldest brother was a one of the biggest fanatics of basketball back in the days and he still is but he doesn't have much time now because of his job... but anyways I remenber being little I think 10 years old while my bro was watching the series between Bulls vs Cleveland, the one in which MJ shot the famous "THE SHOT" and eliminated the Cleveland out of the playoff... and thats when I started watching the NBA ever since 
Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:53 am
VanK wrote:I still like to watch any of the Bulls' games, especally from their 1996 run. Or from their first championship against the Lakers. Or any of the Olajuwon games. Damn, 90's were just so incredibly fun. You had ill perimeter players who played suffocating defense, D was just so tougher in psychical (I hate the no handchecking rule) and there was plethora of quality big men who could do just about anything. Today's NBA lacks D, penetration is too easy and high scoring guards are vastly overrated. VC, Iverson, Wade and others would get killed in the 90's. Some teams that are contenders nowadays (Dallas, Miami, Phoenix) would be worthless back then.
You sound like a serious Scottie pippen fan. It's like the members on these forums who worship players suddenly BECOME them..it's amazing.
Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:55 am
Sit, I feel bad for you. You weren't at Reggie's jersey retirement like I was. 
(Pssst Cheryl Miller was really drunk.)
(Pssst Cheryl Miller was really drunk.)
Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:16 pm
Man Indy you lucky bum! From just watching, I could feel the emotion! 
Indy sure loved Miller Time aye? Did you hold a sign?
Indy sure loved Miller Time aye? Did you hold a sign?
Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:34 pm
Indy wrote:Cheryl Miller was really drunk
I suspect Indy hit on her while she was drunk.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:13 am
Every single person on this forum needs to buy the "Ultimate Jordan" DVD.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:15 am
EGarrett wrote:Every single person on this forum needs to buy the "Ultimate Jordan" DVD.
Agreed! That was an amazing collection, though I felt there could've been more clips considering how many games he has played in.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:32 am
I just got that dvd last week..it's awsome. It's basically just a compilation of all the jordan VHS tapes made.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:45 am
A compilation of all the VHS tapes, AND his 5 greatest games in their entirety. That's the really incredible part. You can compare his style of play in the 80's to what it became 10 years later.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:58 am
You probably got the 3 disc anniversary collection. I only got the 2001 original 2 disc set.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:46 am
Indeed I do.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:54 am
The collector's edition is awesome. It also has some nice special features...the various featurettes on the dunk contest and his greatest games and the top 10 dunks, plays, assists and clutch moments to name just a couple. Those are on the original release as well. One of the best things NBA Entertainment has produced.
Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:49 am
I've seen those Top 10's. They're awesome
Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:05 pm
I've been meaning to post more on the original subject, so it's about time I did. Here goes.
No doubt, I'm biased towards the decade. I think we all identify with the era where we started watching basketball/grew up with etc and that's usually where our all-time favourite players reside. Furthermore, my favourite team won the championship six times in the 90s so I have very fond memories of the era and that perhaps taints my view on it as nostalgia and past euphoria don't allow me to take an objective stance.
That said, I do believe the era is much maligned with all kinds of double standards. There's such a knee-jerk reaction to the exposure the league received in the 90s and the things that were written about the athletes that in today's society, one with a thriving anti-culture, a lot of people readily dismiss everything as hype. With the 90s being hailed as such a great era, the movement against it has almost relabelled it as a dark period between the golden 80s and today's NBA (not to mention the 70s and earlier). I still feel that the 90s was as great or greater than any of the eras before it as well as the current decade. It certainly wasn't weak or boring.
I think part of that can be attributed to Michael Jordan's comeback from 2001-2003 with the Wizards. As the player of the 90s, when he did not live up to his former glory I think a lot of newer fans figured this was as good as he ever was and that planted the idea in their minds that his past marks must have been achieved in a weak, watered down league. Perhaps that's also why it's been suggested that all Kobe Bryant needs to do is lead the Lakers to the Playoffs this season and he will have surpassed Michael Jordan. But that's a rant for another topic.
I must stress that I do not dislike the current era. I love the game of basketball and am entertained by today's players and enthusiastic about the NBA, perhaps moreso now that the Bulls are playoff contenders again after a painful six year period. Just because I may not hold today's stars in the same esteem as some fans doesn't mean I do not respect them or consider them great players. I just feel the 90s remains a bit underrated because of the reaction to the praise heaped upon it and that players like Kobe Bryant are still a way off from surpassing what players from that era - and indeed, the eras before it - have accomplished. But again, that's a topic for another time.
But anyway, the 90s...one of the things that stands out is that it was an era in which you could simply enjoy basketball. There was stats talk and all that stuff, yes, but you could simply enjoy the action and critique a player without going into all kinds of formulas. Yes, I know they have their relevance but I still don't think they've rendered simple statistics such as per game averages and single game totals in the basic statistical categories useless as is often suggested.
If a player scores 30 points on 15/18 shooting with 8 rebounds, 5 assists and a couple of blocks and steals and his team wins by 20...it's been a good night for that player and no other stats or formulas are needed to tell me that, nor can they convince me he had a bad game. It's a fairly generic and perhaps exaggerated example but that's what mattered most statistically back then. Likewise, when a player could maintain an average of 30+ points it could be said that he's having a great year scoring points. You could analyse his efficiency and his shooting percentages and all that, but the fact remained he'd maintained a high scoring average over a complete season and that accomplishment was recognised. I still think that holds true, even though we do seem to place more emphasis on stats - especially more obscure ones - and that does have its merits.
The jerseys and the logos...I know a lot of people look back at them and think they look cartoonish and whatnot, but I actually liked it when teams had more individuality in their colour schemes and jersey designs. The Dallas/Utah/Memphis similarities remain my favourite example. With a lot of teams opting for plainer designs, they've lost some of the "flavour", the individuality. Plus, some good designs came out of the 90s that remain today, like the Sixers', Warriors' and Timberwolves' jerseys.
Sometimes today's TV presentations feel a bit...sterile. I know there's still broadcasters from the 90s working but many of them are on different networks and old broadcasting teams are no more. Bill Walton always seemed to be a lot better alongside Marv Albert, these days he sounds more like the parodies people would always do with him with the wild exaggerations about the players and the importance and/or brilliance of certain plays.
I think humour is too high on the list of analysts' priorities these days. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have humour in there but when everything tries to be funny, it really dillutes the quality of what truly is funny. It happens in television, it happens in social gatherings and it happens on pre-game and halftime shows.
Stephen A. Smith is a huge offender. Too often he tries to be funny, insightful and controversial all at once and it generally comes off as being irritating and undermines what he has to say. I also remember a skit this year where Greg Anthony and Tim Legler re-enacted a war of words between Phil Jackson and Mark Cuban. Anthony's impression of Jax's stance and walk and the Cuban wig raised a smirk but that was it. The rest of it was just them reading the quotes. The same thing happens on TNT a few times where they try a bit too hard to be funny but they pull it off a lot better.
But the biggest thing I miss from the 90s as far as broadcasting/the media is concerned? NBA Action as it used to be, with Jim Fagan doing the show, which acted as a great recap of the week's action as it profiled a few teams of note (rather than the ones with the longest winning streak at the time of production) with good highlight packages and interesting "sidebar" segments as well. Today's version hosted by various people from NBA TV is a lot weaker and while I still watch it, I'm always left wishing it still had Fagan's passion and enthusiasm, as well as the better production. Basketball publications were also worth the money back then (or maybe I had less perspective seeing as I was younger)...more plentiful and readily available in Australia, too.
Getting to the game itself...well, it's been noted the pace was slower but it never felt like it and even going back and watching the games I have on tape and DVD, it doesn't feel like it. Part of that is the placement of mandatory timeouts these days as well as the fact coaches are very quick to call timeouts instead of letting teams weather the storm. It's also worth noting all the rule changes that have been made to increase scoring.
There's a lot of talent in the league these days but it felt more balanced back in the 90s. You had some great players at every position, legitimate big men, talented swingmen, capable point guards...there were some unfortunate cases where those players faded quickly due to injuries but from 1990-1998, there truly was a galaxy of stars who were capable of putting on a great show, regardless of whether the game was a highlight reel in itself or simply a competitive game. I could spend a whole paragraph or more simply rattling off names of players who made the game fun to watch. There were great characters, great rivalries, great stories...and a lot of great games and highlights.
NBA Entertainment has come out with some good releases especially since DVD became the popular format, but a lot of them haven't been done as well as they could have. As good as the "Dunks!" series is, it's quite lacking in that it doesn't have varied highlight packages but rather profiles individual players. The tapes from the 90s did that too, or at least featured small segments on prominent players but they also had much better mixed packages featuring highlights from all kinds of players from all around the league. There was crossover content but plenty of unique content on each tape to make up for it.
The 90s was also the last era to have really impressive rookie classes, mainly because you had more NBA ready players coming out of the draft. The 2003 class was a real throwback to the 90s because we saw players come out and put up above average numbers with a couple comparable to established NBA stars. With less infatuation with potential, rookies came in and made an immediate impact. I miss that.
The other thing about players entering the league these days is that their journey to the NBA has already been so well documented, there's not much else to find out about them once they hit the big time. Their story is pretty much already told and if they've been successful players through high school and/or college, chances are they've been long assured good position in the draft and a future in the NBA. Michael Jordan's story of being cut from the varsity team and working hard to become the player he was is a lot more inspirational than LeBron James getting a $90,000 Hummer before he was even in the league because his place in the NBA was a forgone conclusion. And what was left to discover about him? He's been news since he was 16. Don't get me wrong, LeBron's one of my favourite players but his journey to the NBA is hardly one made for Hollywood.
I could go on and on, but this has probably gone on long enough already. Basically, the 90s was an era with great players, some of the best in the history of the game. It was a really fun time to be a basketball fan. As I said, I could probably rattle off paragraphs about the players and the notable games in the era (as well as some that generally don't get mentioned). The fact of the matter is, today's game is entertaining and basketball throughout the decades has developed into a great spectator sport as well as one that is great to be involved in. But the 90s was a special time and it's a shame it doesn't always get the respect it deserves.
I have to disagree with hipn, I believe games from yesteryear are still entertaining to watch. It's why I keep games on tape and DVD, even games from recent years that I've greatly enjoyed because as a basketball junkie, it's fun to get out those games and watch them again, even if you fast forward through some of the slower parts. I know that I could watch games from the 90s again and still enjoy them immensely and I could do the same for the 80s, earlier this decade, even this season...and yes, before the 80s as well. Sure, living in the past isn't always healthy and what's happening here and now may be more exciting because the result is yet to be seen, but it's not about that. It's a trip down memory lane and I think for some people could be a real education.
Anyway, that's my perspective of the 90s, it's probably come off as being more negative towards today's game than I intended but as I said before that's not my intention. I suppose the next thing I could add to the topic is specific memories of the 90s and various games but I might wait to see what interest there is in the topic before I go and do another essay post.
No doubt, I'm biased towards the decade. I think we all identify with the era where we started watching basketball/grew up with etc and that's usually where our all-time favourite players reside. Furthermore, my favourite team won the championship six times in the 90s so I have very fond memories of the era and that perhaps taints my view on it as nostalgia and past euphoria don't allow me to take an objective stance.
That said, I do believe the era is much maligned with all kinds of double standards. There's such a knee-jerk reaction to the exposure the league received in the 90s and the things that were written about the athletes that in today's society, one with a thriving anti-culture, a lot of people readily dismiss everything as hype. With the 90s being hailed as such a great era, the movement against it has almost relabelled it as a dark period between the golden 80s and today's NBA (not to mention the 70s and earlier). I still feel that the 90s was as great or greater than any of the eras before it as well as the current decade. It certainly wasn't weak or boring.
I think part of that can be attributed to Michael Jordan's comeback from 2001-2003 with the Wizards. As the player of the 90s, when he did not live up to his former glory I think a lot of newer fans figured this was as good as he ever was and that planted the idea in their minds that his past marks must have been achieved in a weak, watered down league. Perhaps that's also why it's been suggested that all Kobe Bryant needs to do is lead the Lakers to the Playoffs this season and he will have surpassed Michael Jordan. But that's a rant for another topic.
I must stress that I do not dislike the current era. I love the game of basketball and am entertained by today's players and enthusiastic about the NBA, perhaps moreso now that the Bulls are playoff contenders again after a painful six year period. Just because I may not hold today's stars in the same esteem as some fans doesn't mean I do not respect them or consider them great players. I just feel the 90s remains a bit underrated because of the reaction to the praise heaped upon it and that players like Kobe Bryant are still a way off from surpassing what players from that era - and indeed, the eras before it - have accomplished. But again, that's a topic for another time.
But anyway, the 90s...one of the things that stands out is that it was an era in which you could simply enjoy basketball. There was stats talk and all that stuff, yes, but you could simply enjoy the action and critique a player without going into all kinds of formulas. Yes, I know they have their relevance but I still don't think they've rendered simple statistics such as per game averages and single game totals in the basic statistical categories useless as is often suggested.
If a player scores 30 points on 15/18 shooting with 8 rebounds, 5 assists and a couple of blocks and steals and his team wins by 20...it's been a good night for that player and no other stats or formulas are needed to tell me that, nor can they convince me he had a bad game. It's a fairly generic and perhaps exaggerated example but that's what mattered most statistically back then. Likewise, when a player could maintain an average of 30+ points it could be said that he's having a great year scoring points. You could analyse his efficiency and his shooting percentages and all that, but the fact remained he'd maintained a high scoring average over a complete season and that accomplishment was recognised. I still think that holds true, even though we do seem to place more emphasis on stats - especially more obscure ones - and that does have its merits.
The jerseys and the logos...I know a lot of people look back at them and think they look cartoonish and whatnot, but I actually liked it when teams had more individuality in their colour schemes and jersey designs. The Dallas/Utah/Memphis similarities remain my favourite example. With a lot of teams opting for plainer designs, they've lost some of the "flavour", the individuality. Plus, some good designs came out of the 90s that remain today, like the Sixers', Warriors' and Timberwolves' jerseys.
Sometimes today's TV presentations feel a bit...sterile. I know there's still broadcasters from the 90s working but many of them are on different networks and old broadcasting teams are no more. Bill Walton always seemed to be a lot better alongside Marv Albert, these days he sounds more like the parodies people would always do with him with the wild exaggerations about the players and the importance and/or brilliance of certain plays.
I think humour is too high on the list of analysts' priorities these days. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have humour in there but when everything tries to be funny, it really dillutes the quality of what truly is funny. It happens in television, it happens in social gatherings and it happens on pre-game and halftime shows.
Stephen A. Smith is a huge offender. Too often he tries to be funny, insightful and controversial all at once and it generally comes off as being irritating and undermines what he has to say. I also remember a skit this year where Greg Anthony and Tim Legler re-enacted a war of words between Phil Jackson and Mark Cuban. Anthony's impression of Jax's stance and walk and the Cuban wig raised a smirk but that was it. The rest of it was just them reading the quotes. The same thing happens on TNT a few times where they try a bit too hard to be funny but they pull it off a lot better.
But the biggest thing I miss from the 90s as far as broadcasting/the media is concerned? NBA Action as it used to be, with Jim Fagan doing the show, which acted as a great recap of the week's action as it profiled a few teams of note (rather than the ones with the longest winning streak at the time of production) with good highlight packages and interesting "sidebar" segments as well. Today's version hosted by various people from NBA TV is a lot weaker and while I still watch it, I'm always left wishing it still had Fagan's passion and enthusiasm, as well as the better production. Basketball publications were also worth the money back then (or maybe I had less perspective seeing as I was younger)...more plentiful and readily available in Australia, too.
Getting to the game itself...well, it's been noted the pace was slower but it never felt like it and even going back and watching the games I have on tape and DVD, it doesn't feel like it. Part of that is the placement of mandatory timeouts these days as well as the fact coaches are very quick to call timeouts instead of letting teams weather the storm. It's also worth noting all the rule changes that have been made to increase scoring.
There's a lot of talent in the league these days but it felt more balanced back in the 90s. You had some great players at every position, legitimate big men, talented swingmen, capable point guards...there were some unfortunate cases where those players faded quickly due to injuries but from 1990-1998, there truly was a galaxy of stars who were capable of putting on a great show, regardless of whether the game was a highlight reel in itself or simply a competitive game. I could spend a whole paragraph or more simply rattling off names of players who made the game fun to watch. There were great characters, great rivalries, great stories...and a lot of great games and highlights.
NBA Entertainment has come out with some good releases especially since DVD became the popular format, but a lot of them haven't been done as well as they could have. As good as the "Dunks!" series is, it's quite lacking in that it doesn't have varied highlight packages but rather profiles individual players. The tapes from the 90s did that too, or at least featured small segments on prominent players but they also had much better mixed packages featuring highlights from all kinds of players from all around the league. There was crossover content but plenty of unique content on each tape to make up for it.
The 90s was also the last era to have really impressive rookie classes, mainly because you had more NBA ready players coming out of the draft. The 2003 class was a real throwback to the 90s because we saw players come out and put up above average numbers with a couple comparable to established NBA stars. With less infatuation with potential, rookies came in and made an immediate impact. I miss that.
The other thing about players entering the league these days is that their journey to the NBA has already been so well documented, there's not much else to find out about them once they hit the big time. Their story is pretty much already told and if they've been successful players through high school and/or college, chances are they've been long assured good position in the draft and a future in the NBA. Michael Jordan's story of being cut from the varsity team and working hard to become the player he was is a lot more inspirational than LeBron James getting a $90,000 Hummer before he was even in the league because his place in the NBA was a forgone conclusion. And what was left to discover about him? He's been news since he was 16. Don't get me wrong, LeBron's one of my favourite players but his journey to the NBA is hardly one made for Hollywood.
I could go on and on, but this has probably gone on long enough already. Basically, the 90s was an era with great players, some of the best in the history of the game. It was a really fun time to be a basketball fan. As I said, I could probably rattle off paragraphs about the players and the notable games in the era (as well as some that generally don't get mentioned). The fact of the matter is, today's game is entertaining and basketball throughout the decades has developed into a great spectator sport as well as one that is great to be involved in. But the 90s was a special time and it's a shame it doesn't always get the respect it deserves.
I have to disagree with hipn, I believe games from yesteryear are still entertaining to watch. It's why I keep games on tape and DVD, even games from recent years that I've greatly enjoyed because as a basketball junkie, it's fun to get out those games and watch them again, even if you fast forward through some of the slower parts. I know that I could watch games from the 90s again and still enjoy them immensely and I could do the same for the 80s, earlier this decade, even this season...and yes, before the 80s as well. Sure, living in the past isn't always healthy and what's happening here and now may be more exciting because the result is yet to be seen, but it's not about that. It's a trip down memory lane and I think for some people could be a real education.
Anyway, that's my perspective of the 90s, it's probably come off as being more negative towards today's game than I intended but as I said before that's not my intention. I suppose the next thing I could add to the topic is specific memories of the 90s and various games but I might wait to see what interest there is in the topic before I go and do another essay post.
Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:13 pm
If you'd have posted that paragraph by paragraph you'd have 20,000 by now.
Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:23 pm
Sure, but that would've been cheating.
Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:31 pm
Hey Andrew, did Basketball have that Hip Hop image/tag in the 90s?
Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:08 pm
Oh good question, I forgot about that. Yes and no. Hip hop has gone hand in hand with basketball for a long time but not to the extent it is now. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I suppose is a matter of personal preference. I have nothing against the genre, in fact some artists are part of my very eccletic taste in music but I think it's overused today. DJ Clue must never host another NBA DVD again. Likewise, I'm not a huge fan of SLAM magazine and it's had a bad influence on other basketball publications, like that new "Handle" magazine here in Australia.
Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Andrew wrote:I've been meaning to post more on the original subject, so it's about time I did. Here goes...
Nice long post. Alcohol does wonders eh Andrew.
Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:38 pm
It can, but not in this case. I avoid the forum if I've had a few, after Nick provided us with a great example of what can happen in that situation.
Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:42 pm
Handle is the Aussie version of SLAM 
Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:56 pm
I haven't actually bought a copy yet and from what Jae's told me and what I've seen flipping through it...I don't want to. It's funny how people write in and blast the NBA claiming they don't do enough NBL content and the magazine should be focusing more on Australian basketball...all the while using well-known Australian slang like "yo dawg". 