bluesaxe said:
SFCityBear said:
bluesaxe said:
"Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles."
I have never, ever heard a Cal fan belittle Pete Newell or his teams. I'm by no means young and those teams existed when I was in kindergarten. It's silly to keep bringing them up as an example of anything other than historical fact.
I have heard Cal fans belittle the idea that you can simply recreate those teams and have that same success. Very little about the game is the same today. Fundamentals, yes, but the shot clock, the speed of the game, the verticality of the game, the size and strength of the players, the recruiting pipelines, the potential payoffs if you go pro, the money spent on the programs, all those things are in a different universe today. So consider the possibility that while Newell was an excellent coach and an excellent teacher, if he were coaching today he'd play an entirely different game.
Thank you for this post. You make good some points, and it gives me the chance to clarify what I wrote. First I did not write that any Cal fan had belittled Pete Newell, as you said. (Although there were many Cal fans grumbling about Newell's coaching in 1955, when his first Cal team went 9-16 and 1-11 in conference.) Newell's Cal teams are belittled here on the Bear Insider sometimes. Maybe you are not sensitive to it, or haven't read it. They belittle the basketball of that era, and the players of that era. You want names? There are several who come to mind (all in my ignore list). There's a guy who may live in Concord, and another who apparently does not like the Unit 2 dorms. I'll leave it there.
If you are not young, then I must be really old, because I actually first saw Newell's teams play when I was playing basketball in junior high school. I had a little appreciation for the game, more so than a kindergardener. I wish you and everyone had seen those Cal teams play. I bring up those teams to recreate the feeling for today's fans that I got from watching the best teams Cal ever had play a game. They were like watching a Swiss watch, or like watching a surgeon operate successfully. There was just a precision to it, and to attend games where the opponent usually looked nervous and a bit scared, or would once they found that nothing they tried worked against Cal.
I've never heard it said that anyone could recreate those teams and have the same success. As to the speed of the game and the shot clock, have you noticed that almost every team today plays the same speed? They all play fast. As soon as they get a rebound or a loose ball, the race is on to get to the other end of the floor as fast as possible and put up a shot before the defense can get set. And much of the time they never get there, because they are playing so fast they get out of control and lose the ball. Many fans today are under the mistaken belief that Newell played a deliberate game to slow the pace of the game down. That is totally untrue. Newell coached his team prevent the other team from getting a good shot, which slowed the other team down. Newell's teams usually played a pattern offense, but always got an open shot well within any shot clock. As I pointed out in a recent post, his '59 team put up more shots in a game on average than most modern Cal teams, including our PAC10 champs of 2010, or any of Cuonzo's teams who tried to play the fast pace of today's game. One reason Newell's teams put up more shots, is they made fewer turnovers. They did not keep stats in those days, except that one of my classmates kept turnover stats in 1960, and Cal averaged 6 TO's per game that season.
The game is different today, as you said. You failed to mention that the big difference is in the rule changes favoring the offensive player, allowing traveling, palming the ball, and charging, eliminating hand-checking, and of course making the perimeter shot worth 3 points. Newell was a highly respected coach in his day, and I think he would have lobbied against most of these rule changes, because his forte was defense. He did lobby the NCAA to install a shot clock, which they finally did, and it was a good change.
Teams of old had advantages over today. Newell had 17 scholarships to give out every year. He usually had about 40-45 players on scholarship. He stockpiled players, brought them along slowly. There was no Title IX. There were fewer schools recruiting, and the recruits of that era had good fundamentals and skills for that era. I'm not sure Newell would be a successful recruiter like a Coach K or Bill Self, but I'm sure he could coach teams that could win with less material than most of his opponents, like he had done before at Cal. He could not beat everybody. He was able to slow down Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Elgin Baylor, but he could not beat their teams. He did keep John Wooden from winning a national title, who did not win one until Pete retired coaching.
Finally, Newell was always creative, always finding ways to beat you or neutralize what you were doing. If he were coaching today, with today's rules and players, I would say that he would coach differently from the other coaches today. On defense, he would find ways to reduce penetration and still guard the perimeter, if it is possible. On offense, he would find ways to get his players wide open shots in their favorite spots. I don't know what his teams would look like, but they would look different from all the other teams he played, just like they looked different from all the other teams they played in the 1950s. Many or most teams in the Midwest and east were run and gun. Newell made them play in the half court. I think if Newell were coaching today, the entire game would be played a little differently, because coaches would have to figure out how to counteract what Newell was doing, and would not be able to play their own game the way they wanted to do. He was just ahead of his time, and if he were coaching today, he would still be a step ahead, IMHO.
I'm 63 and I've seen and played a whole lot of basketball in my life. I think Newell was a great coach. I saw the results of his big man's camp frequently in the NBA. But I also think if could take him and his teams from that era and put them up against the best teams today those Cal teams would be annihilated. Just like pitchers from the 1950's would, with very rare exceptions if any, get smoked by today's hitters, just like the track records from that era look quaint now, and how the 1960 NFL champion Eagles would probably struggle against Auburn. It's not a disparagement of what those teams accomplished in their eras, but a recognition that today's athletes are just that much stronger, faster, have more experience before college, and in the case of basketball better overall shooting ability. My opinion to a degree, I guess, but every objective measurable you could find would support the conclusion I'm pretty sure.
Here I go again having this same discussion, mostly with people who have never seen a Pete Newell team in action. With all due respect, if you are 63, then you weren't even in kindergarden when Newell's team's played. How can you be so sure Newell's teams would be annihilated by the best teams today if you have never seen Newell's teams play? By the way, ANNIHILATED is more than just belittling. It is disparaging. And I've read this stuff from several Cal fans right on this board.
My argument is always that you CAN NOT honestly compare athletes or teams of different eras. The rules have changed. The equipment has changed. The playing arenas, the floors, etc have changed. Basketball rules today are so different from the rules in Newell's Cal days that they have forced changes in the way teams players are allowed to play, and forced players to abandon the skills of yesteryear, and learn new skills for the new rules. The basketball floor has changed. The key has widened. The three point line was installed. Then a little semicircle was installed around the basket to define an area where charging would be allowed. Running with the ball, or traveling is seldom called. Carrying the ball or palming is never called. Guys like Stephan Curry or Kevin Durant depend heavily on the palm. No player 6'-8" and taller can dribble a ball without palming it. Magic palmed it all the time. The half court line is no longer needed, because teams can easily dribble the ball past it in 10 seconds. The reason they can break most presses is the dribblers can palm the ball. If you are allowed to palm it, a good dribbler can break down any defender except the very best ones. It was much harder to penetrate the lane in the '50s. There was no 3-point shot, so all the defenders were much closer to the basket, and there was no palming allowed, or traveling. Heck, I was watching an NBA game the other night and a guy with the ball took 2 steps before starting his dribble, then dribbled toward the basket, and took three steps and dunked the ball. He traveled twice on the same dribble! Basketball has changed all its rules to favor the offensive player. In addition to not calling traveling or carrying the ball, hand checking has been banned. You can't lay a hand on the offensive player. And apparently the offensive player can use a straightarm, like a tailback in football, to ward off the defender. I say apparently, because I saw Jaylen Brown use it at Cal several times. He would use his off hand to punch a defender in the chest on a drive to the hoop. He was never called for it that I saw.
Defenses today are very handicapped by the rules. A guy like Jorge might not be as good today, because the refs don't give the offensive player a charge near as much now. And he wouldn't be allowed to hand check. Monty's teams used to practice flopping.
The players of Newell's era were more aggressive. Before that era, basketball was even a much rougher sport. When I was growing up, I'd play sometimes with my dad and his friends. My dad was on the Cal Frosh team in 1930. Anyway, after those games, I'd come home with my hands and forearms all black and blue with pain. They never called fouls in those days.
Even with the athleticism today, I think players today are coddled by the schedules. Newell's teams played all their games back to back, Friday and Saturday nights, with no rest in between. Except for the PAC12 tournament, today's players hardly ever play back to back games. Today's players have trainers, and the best doctors that money can buy.
That is another thing. Today's players get injured much more often than in Newell's day. The game was just as rough then, with plenty of big bodies banging. They were getting hit by Joe Kapp in practice every day, and when you get hit by Joe Kapp, you felt it. In 6 years, I never saw a player injured at Cal, never saw one in street clothes on the bench. Today, so many team's have their season wrecked by an injury to a key player. Players today don't have much stamina. They get gassed after 5 minutes. How does that happen in a game with endless timeouts? Newell's teams played a faster pace than today, and often played a whole game without a timeout.
I would say that players might have more experience before college, because most players of the Newell era were three sport stars in high school, basketball, football, and baseball. They were more well-rounded than athletes of today. But they still played in several leagues before college, high school, recreation or playground, CYO, Boys Club and church leagues.
So here is what I think: You take today's teams vs Newell's teams playing by today's rules and Newell's teams lose badly, I'd agree. But you take today's teams playing against Newell's teams using the rules of his era, and Newell's teams win easily. One reason is the players of any era spend many years perfecting their skills and fundamentals, and to transport them to play one game in an era 60 years earlier or later, and those players would not have enough time to learn the skills and fundamentals needed for that new and different era.
Football and baseball are the same. The players train specifically for one role. In the '60s guys like Spahn or Marichal or Koufax and many more usually pitched 9 innings. They could go 10, 12, 15 innings, whatever it took to win. The bullpen was 2-3 guys who didn't pitch very often. Now, 6 innings is a quality start. Everybody says they throw harder now. You think Bob Feller didn't throw 100 mph? or Nolan Ryan? Baseball is another sports where the athletes get hurt all the time, and off they go to the Disabled List. In Football, everyone is a specialist, coming in for a play or two and going back to the bench. When Newell was at Cal, Elliot took Cal to Rose Bowl and his players went both ways, most of them playing 60 minutes. Today only a handful play even 30 minutes at the most.
In track and field, many records can not be compared, such as the pole vault, because the pole has been radically altered to help the vaulter to new heights. The composition tracks of today, the better running shoes, and the better uniforms to eliminate drag all help the athlete get better times.
I agree with you on basketball shooters being better on average today. It is a shame to waste that by playing a slow game like they do and put up so few shots. But they have far fewer shots in their repertoire than the player in Newell's Cal days, where players had one hand push shots, two hand jump shots, short mid range, hook shots sometimes with either hand and floaters. Some players could shoot long range, but not many. In 1959, the NCAA teams averaged 66 field goal attempts, shot 39%, and scored 68.7 points. In 2013, they averaged 55 attempts, shot 43%, and scored 67.5 points even with a shot clock and a three pointer installed in the game. So for all the changes the NCAA made to promote offense, it hasn't affected the score much.
I don't think you can honestly compare all teams or athletes of different eras. I don't believe there are enough "objective measurables". It is fun to speculate, however. I remember at last year's PAC12 tournament, Julius Erving was asked by a reporter on camera to comment on the athleticism of the modern players. He replied, "Oh yes, but I think we were a little athletic too. There are things players can do today that we were not allowed to do."
And there is Wilt Chamberlain, who was asked by Bill Russell, "Wilt, you averaged 50 points one season in the NBA. How many points could you average in today's game?" Wilt thought about it, and replied, "Oh, about 75."
Sorry for the long post, but you pushed all my buttons. Let me know what you think.
SFCityBear
