Derek Fisher on the 90s/2000s NBA vs current NBA. Is he right, or is he another Retired player hating?

[Copy Ninja]

He said EXACTLY that.


"It's a different game. And it's not a negative thing, it's just built for the entertainment value, maybe, than the competitive value."

You posted

Claiming that 1990s/2000s NBA wasn't built for entertainment value

which he never claimed. And you left out the word 'more' which is key to his statement. You ain't slick

He said -

"It's a different game. And it's not a negative thing, it's just built more for the entertainment value, maybe, than the competitive value."

 

[Roger king]

Two points, one derrick fisher is seriously underrated player and was very solid in the playoffs for those laker teams, hit several clutch shots, i keep saying that lakers super team should have won 6 championship in a row with that starting team and the role players.
In terms of the caliber of player todays players are stronger, more atheltic and more skilled at the game of basketball than in 80s and 90s, there is comparison at all on that issue

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He said EXACTLY that.

You posted


which he never claimed. And you left out the word 'more' which is key to his statement. You ain't slick

Saying, "It's a different game....it's just built more for the entertainment value than the competitive value" implies that the previous game was built more for the competitive value than the entertainment value.

You're being juvenile for me to even have to spell that out.

 

[Copy Ninja]

Saying, "It's a different game....it's just built more for the entertainment value than the competitive value" implies that the previous game was built more for the competitive value than the entertainment value.

You're being juvenile for me to even have to spell that out.

If you had simply posted that I wouldn't have disagreed. But you replied to my post with a misleading claim and followed that up with an incorrect quote from the clip. How is it that I'm being juvenile?

Claiming that 1990s/2000s NBA wasn't built for entertainment value

He said EXACTLY that.


"It's a different game. And it's not a negative thing, it's just built for the entertainment value, maybe, than the competitive value."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If you had simply posted that I wouldn't have disagreed. But you replied to my post with a misleading claim and followed that up with an incorrect quote from the clip. How is that juvenile?

I missed one word when I typed up a quote that still maintained the exact same point, at worst with a slight degree of hyperbole.

If that's the issue you took with my post then maybe this isn't the forum for you.


All this writing to ignore that my argument was correct - the modern game is no more "built on entertainment rather than competitiveness" than the 1990s game was. If anything, it's the opposite. Funny to see guys constantly bragging about how prettier the previous generation's playe was and much more entertaining and unique the older playstyles were while the modern game has become too prescibed and analytics-based.....but then they want to turn around and say it's about entertainment, not winning?

Using analytics as the end-all is the prime example of choosing competitivenes ove rentertainment.

 

[Diondon]

I can decipher for him if you like.

 

[UnQuantized]

There are no interesting storylines right now, to pull in the casuals

 

[Boonapalist]

Two points, one derrick fisher is seriously underrated player and was very solid in the playoffs for those laker teams, hit several clutch shots, i keep saying that lakers super team should have won 6 championship in a row with that starting team and the role players.
In terms of the caliber of player todays players are stronger, more atheltic and more skilled at the game of basketball than in 80s and 90s, there is comparison at all on that issue

Super team . When tf were they a super team? 03-04 maybe but that’s it. You can’t help but post with an agenda

 

[Copy Ninja]

I missed one word when I typed up a quote that still maintained the exact same point, at worst with a slight degree of hyperbole.

If that's the issue you took with my post then maybe this isn't the forum for you.


All this writing to ignore that my argument was correct - the modern game is no more "built on entertainment rather than competitiveness" than the 1990s game was. If anything, it's the opposite. Funny to see guys constantly bragging about how prettier the previous generation's playe was and much more entertaining and unique the older playstyles were while the modern game has become too prescibed and analytics-based.....but then they want to turn around and say it's about entertainment, not winning?

Using analytics as the end-all is the prime example of choosing competitivenes ove rentertainment.

You're a disingenuous dude gotdam

Everyone reading this thread can see the bullshyt you're putting on besides you're fellow Bron butt buddy @Roger king. This dude negged me for calling out your bullshyt

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You're a disingenuous dude gotdam

Everyone reading this thread can see the bullshyt you're putting on besides you're fellow Bron butt buddy @Roger king. This dude negged me for calling out your bullshyt

You're five posts into your pearl-clutching and still haven't even addressed my point because you know I was right.

You even admitted that you wouldn't have responded if I hadn't made my claim with slight hyperbole and missed ONE word when typing up the quote from audio.

 

[Kunty McPhuck]

Claiming that 1990s/2000s NBA wasn't built for entertainment value, or that modern sports is less competitive, makes zero sense.

If anything, analytics has forced teams to be MORE competitive than before, not less. Modern analytics has teams trying to maximize the point value of every single play rather than allowing players to do their thing just because it looks good. I agree that the sport has changed, but it changed due to the demand for efficiency, not due to some increased need for entertainment.

The Entertainment is the rules being changed in favoured of attacking play which equals higher scoring. Which for the causal viewer finds more entertaining than the gritty hard nose defensive tactical battle that the hardcore fans will enjoy more.

As he said its not jsut the NBA it's the NFL. And beyond that it's in Soccer its in Cricket in Rugby and other team sports world wide.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The Entertainment is the rules being changed in favoured of attacking play which equals higher scoring. Which for the causal viewer finds more entertaining than the gritty hard nose defensive tactical battle that the hardcore fans will enjoy more.

Rule changes didn't limit the "gritty hard nose defensive tactical battle" at all. Pistons, Spurs, Pacers were all putting forth absolutely suffocating tactical defensive teams after the initial rule changes, far better than anything that existed in the 1990s. I would argue that defensive tactical battles continued to only get better until peaking with the Bulls/Pacers/Heat/Pacers/Spurs etc in the early 2010s. The reason they faded wasn't rule changes, it was the impossibility of guarding teams with that intensity when they have 4-5 three-point shooters on the court at all times along with the epidemic of injuries that hit.

Officials in every era have tried to change the rules to keep the game from stagnating (widening the key in the 1960s, adding the 3pt shot in the 1970s, adding 5-second rule and shortening the 3pt line in the 1990s, adding the zone in the early 2000s), but the changes of the last 20 years have been comparatively minor in both execution and impact.

 

[Cladyclad]

That was a good analogy and his point about sports now geared towards 'entertainment' is also on accurate.

That is negative what he said though. Its a slight. All sports change to better the experience for the fan. These cats competing just as hard as previous generations if not more dedicated

 

[Roger king]

Rule changes didn't limit the "gritty hard nose defensive tactical battle" at all. Pistons, Spurs, Pacers were all putting forth absolutely suffocating tactical defensive teams after the initial rule changes, far better than anything that existed in the 1990s. I would argue that defensive tactical battles continued to only get better until peaking with the Bulls/Pacers/Heat/Pacers/Spurs etc in the early 2010s. The reason they faded wasn't rule changes, it was the impossibility of guarding teams with that intensity when they have 4-5 three-point shooters on the court at all times along with the epidemic of injuries that hit.

Officials in every era have tried to change the rules to keep the game from stagnating (widening the key in the 1960s, adding the 3pt shot in the 1970s, adding 5-second rule and shortening the 3pt line in the 1990s, adding the zone in the early 2000s), but the changes of the last 20 years have been comparatively minor in both execution and impact.

The athletes today are stronger , faster,they have more skills , there is no dispute around that. No single team in the 80s or 90 was as good as the 2018 golden state warriors. The competition level , the intensity is way harder in todays NBA than the 90s.

 

[Trojan 24]

We have a meaningless LGBT Mid-Season Tourney now, he right