Len Bias Lives

During discussion yesterday in my Constitutional Law class we talked about the death of Len Bias and how it influenced the tougher penalties for crack cocaine. So let us suppose that Len Bias either does not smoke the crack that killed him, or survives the experience. How does this impact anti-drug legislation and the drug war in general? Also what is the larger impact on society?
 
Also what is the larger impact on society?

Michael Jordan gets competition for best player in the NBA. They become linked together in people's memories as a duo. But is it a friendly Magic vs Bird rivalry duo? or a more antagonistic Russell vs Chamberlain sort of rivalry pairing?


As for drugs and crack, America's "fear" of the so called growing crack epidemic will happen regardless. Unfair higher judicial sentencing for crack offenses will still occur.
 
Michael Jordan gets competition for best player in the NBA. They become linked together in people's memories as a duo. But is it a friendly Magic vs Bird rivalry duo? or a more antagonistic Russell vs Chamberlain sort of rivalry pairing?


As for drugs and crack, America's "fear" of the so called growing crack epidemic will happen regardless. Unfair higher judicial sentencing for crack offenses will still occur.

I would hope for a friendly rivalry! It would have been nice to see what Len could have done in the NBA.

I would hope that without his high profile death there would be less of a push for the harsh crack cocaine penalties. It never made sense to me anyway, after all you cannot make crack without the powder cocaine!
 
I would hope for a friendly rivalry! It would have been nice to see what Len could have done in the NBA.

I expect it would have been bitter. At least on Jordan's end. His hall of fame speech was a diatribe against people he'd played against many years earlier. The man had issues. Issues he used to drive himself to even higher levels of greatness. But issues. I think he'd have taken it as a personal insult to have someone "challenge" him as best player in the NBA.
 
It would have been an antagonistic duel, no doubt. Jordan would attempt to destroy his opponent psychologically, more so those that approached his level. In the short term, Bias will help Bird, Parish and McHale rest a bit, and also return to the finals to face off with the Showtime Lakers. I still think the Lakers are too powerful in 87, as Bias is trying to get acclimated and is playing a backseat to Bird, but in 88 and 89, as Bias improves, things would definitely be in Boston's favor. As a player, Bias at 6-8 220 would have been a late 80s, 90s version of Lebron, explosive athleticism, a good jump shot, good passer, etc. It remains to be seen if Bias doesn't end up having that same sort of clutch malaise that Lebron has, or more dangerously suffer from discipline issues, he did die of a cocaine overdose don't forget, yet because of the support system of having Bird/McHale/Parish around he's got good influences around him.

However, Jordan probably still wins the majority of the titles in the 90s, assuming that the Bulls still get Pippen and Grant or pieces equivalent to them, and have Phil Jackson coaching. With Bias around, Jordan is also far less likely to take that 2 year mini retirement and play minor league baseball. Maybe I'm being Biased, forgive the pun, but I have a hard time seeing how Bias can reach the same level as Jordan.

However, with Bird, Parish and McHale retiring around the early 90s, Boston is really going to have to rebuild a good supporting cast around Bias; there might be a few down years in the early-mid 90s, where he has to put all the burden on himself just to get the Celtics to the playoffs.

I'll tell you this, Bias isn't going to be competing in the Conference finals with Jordan if he has a supporting cast of Dino Radja, Dee Brown and the other lackluster players the Celtics featured in the mid-90s. He's going to need a second all-star who is more importantly willing to be a second banana to Bias, that'll replace the Parish/McHale duo, preferably an all-star big man like an Alonzo Mourning, and then he'd be able to go toe to toe with Jordan's Bulls (so long as Bias is able to get along with his big man and avoid a Kobe/Shaq drama of course). Then again, if the Celtics somehow manage to get another top draft pick though their typical Auerbachian chicanery and manage to draft Shaq in the early 90s and pair him with Bias... I don't want to delve any more into that or else I'll start getting nightmares.

It won't work as well with a backcourt all-star, or else you'd have a Lebron/D-Wade situation in Miami where their games don't compliment each other very well. If they do get to the finals during the mid-90s, they're likely to beat anyone coming out of the West (as the traditional powerhouse of the Western Conference, the Lakers is on a down period following the Post-showtime era and its before the Shaq/Kobe era, but who knows, maybe Bias ends up butterflying Magic's HIV and he ends up playing a few more years, he was only 32 when he announced that he had it in 91).

1996 is a critical draft year for the Celtics, as that's basically the best draft class since the 84 draft, (the players would probably end up going to different universities and such but assuming that the level of talent is similar you'll probably see many of the same players in that draft) but because of Bias they're likely to have a lower pick so I'm not certain they'd be able to pick a player of the Kobe/AI caliber, unless they trade up for it. However, they should still be able to refuel with good talent in those late 90s drafts to keep the Celtics competitive until Bias retires around 2000. After that though, its difficult to predict what Bias would do in retirement.

Anyhow, I predict about 2 in the late 80s in the backend of the Bird era, and then if the Celtics can pair Bias up with a second All-Star, another two in the nineties. Any more than that would require Jordan becoming paralyzed from the waist down at around 1990.
 
Last edited:
The concept of a "friendly rivalry" was more or less foreign to the NBA before the Kobe/Pierce generation. I blame Stern for getting rid of the good old hatefests.
It would have been an antagonistic duel, no doubt. Jordan would attempt to destroy his opponent psychologically, more so those that approached his level. In the short term, Bias will help Bird, Parish and McHale rest a bit, and also return to the finals to face off with the Showtime Lakers. I still think the Lakers are too powerful in 87, as Bias is trying to get acclimated and is playing a backseat to Bird, but in 88 and 89, as Bias improves, things would definitely be in Boston's favor.
The Lakers too powerful in '87? Even with the Celts horribly ravaged by injuries in the Finals, the series still went six. They also got insanely lucky in the playoffs - the best team they played before the Finals was a 42-win Wahyahs team that pulled out the Sleepy Floyd Game and showed how mediocre the Lakers were on defense even with Mychal Thompson (they were last in the league in defensive rebounds that season, which is kinda depressing). Houston pulled a no-show, Portland wasn't there yet, and the Mavs got shocked in the first round by Seattle.

To be fair, there was basically no way of stopping them from scoring at will the whole game, but still.
 
The concept of a "friendly rivalry" was more or less foreign to the NBA before the Kobe/Pierce generation. I blame Stern for getting rid of the good old hatefests.

The Lakers too powerful in '87? Even with the Celts horribly ravaged by injuries in the Finals, the series still went six. They also got insanely lucky in the playoffs - the best team they played before the Finals was a 42-win Wahyahs team that pulled out the Sleepy Floyd Game and showed how mediocre the Lakers were on defense even with Mychal Thompson (they were last in the league in defensive rebounds that season, which is kinda depressing). Houston pulled a no-show, Portland wasn't there yet, and the Mavs got shocked in the first round by Seattle.

To be fair, there was basically no way of stopping them from scoring at will the whole game, but still.

And, three of the four games that the Lakers played against Seattle went down to the wire. That series was a lot closer than people realize.
 
The concept of a "friendly rivalry" was more or less foreign to the NBA before the Kobe/Pierce generation. I blame Stern for getting rid of the good old hatefests.

The Lakers too powerful in '87? Even with the Celts horribly ravaged by injuries in the Finals, the series still went six. They also got insanely lucky in the playoffs - the best team they played before the Finals was a 42-win Wahyahs team that pulled out the Sleepy Floyd Game and showed how mediocre the Lakers were on defense even with Mychal Thompson (they were last in the league in defensive rebounds that season, which is kinda depressing). Houston pulled a no-show, Portland wasn't there yet, and the Mavs got shocked in the first round by Seattle.

To be fair, there was basically no way of stopping them from scoring at will the whole game, but still.

All right, I admit it, I'm speaking from the point of view from a biased Laker fan. However, I still think that in either 87 or 88, with Showtime at its peak, the Lakers would have likely won one of those times. Also, Bias is probably playing behind Bird the first couple years, and his playing time could be limited somewhat until Bird's decline becomes especially apparent. I can also point out that during the following year the Lakers had a far more difficult path, having to beat both Dallas and Detroit in 7.

Perhaps I'm also saying this as a biased Laker fans, but I think that Bias being a potential 'Jordan level superstar' is partly because of tragic and untimely demise. Realistically though, its no sure thing that Bias would have become a superstar. He was ridiculously athletic, and had a good mid-range jumper, yet for a small forward he was an average rebounder and not a very good passer compared when being compared to other small forwards that would go on to have All-Star careers.

(Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4011)

More dangerously, the fact that he died of drugs meant that as a player, he might have continued to have a drug problem and potentially have gotten in trouble with the law (his own brother was shot dead in 1990 in an act of random violence) and this lack of discipline could have prevented him from ascending to a superstar status.

On a lighter note.

You say there isn't any good old hatefests in the NBA? I watched through the whole Kobe-Shaq era and if that wasn't a hate fest, then I don't know what is.

Yet I admit that this generation of stars are more concerned with playing with one another (cough 'Lebron' cough) than wanting to beat one another.
 
Michael Jordan gets competition for best player in the NBA. They become linked together in people's memories as a duo. But is it a friendly Magic vs Bird rivalry duo? or a more antagonistic Russell vs Chamberlain sort of rivalry pairing?


As for drugs and crack, America's "fear" of the so called growing crack epidemic will happen regardless. Unfair higher judicial sentencing for crack offenses will still occur.

No he does not. Len Bias was good. He was no Michael Jordan. Lets be real here.
 
because of the support system of having Bird/McHale/Parish around he's got good influences around him.

but I have a hard time seeing how Bias can reach the same level as Jordan.

For the Celtics with Len Bias, there are two major butterfly questions:

1) Do the Celtics in fact keep McHale. There is a minutes crunch and a salary issue. Can they distribute the time well enough to keep everyone happy. For example, in the 86-87 season, McHale played the most minutes per game in the entire league. Parrish as the oldest can certainly see some reducing of his minutes naturally. McHale would have to play significant minutes at center. Will he be ok with that? Will the Celtics Front Office see too many Front Court stars and cut there payroll. If so, McHale brings the most back in value as Parrish is older and no way Bird leaves. I can see them keeping McHale for Bias first season, but I think its close to 50-50 McHale leaves.

2) If McHale stays, with everyones minutes reduced some, does Bird stay healthier. No bone spurs in his feet and no debilitating back injury. A healthier Bird can be more effective into the early 90s and plays a couple more years. The aged back injured Bird was still a very effective player in his last season (92) in the 45 games he did play. McHale might also be more effective longer with reduced minutes. (See above, McHale leading in minutes per game in 86-87 for example)


Can Bias reach the same level as Jordan? I agree, I have a hard time seeing him (or anyone) do it. But I do think, even with never having played a single NBA game that Bias is one of the 50 greatest basketball players of all time. Perhaps a ridiculous statement, and by me he certainly ranks near 50, not number 1. But if you were going to give odds on a non-Center during the Jordan era to be the closest to Jordan in value, who would you take over Bias? Malone? Pippen? Drexler? Barkley? Grant Hill (maybe too young for a quality comparison)?

Hard to say since a Bias NBA career is all projected.

Well I've said my piece.
 
All right, I admit it, I'm speaking from the point of view from a biased Laker fan. However, I still think that in either 87 or 88, with Showtime at its peak, the Lakers would have likely won one of those times. Also, Bias is probably playing behind Bird the first couple years, and his playing time could be limited somewhat until Bird's decline becomes especially apparent. I can also point out that during the following year the Lakers had a far more difficult path, having to beat both Dallas and Detroit in 7.
Yeah, and that Detroit Finals came down to Isiah Thomas playing out of his mind (but just barely not good enough) on a sprain. I agree that the Lakers probably would've stolen another Finals, and if any year was theirs to do it, it was '87, but it was just too close in OTL, let alone against the '87 C's + Bias, to just give them the ringz.
Bmao said:
Perhaps I'm also saying this as a biased Laker fans, but I think that Bias being a potential 'Jordan level superstar' is partly because of tragic and untimely demise. Realistically though, its no sure thing that Bias would have become a superstar. He was ridiculously athletic, and had a good mid-range jumper, yet for a small forward he was an average rebounder and not a very good passer compared when being compared to other small forwards that would go on to have All-Star careers.

(Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4011)

More dangerously, the fact that he died of drugs meant that as a player, he might have continued to have a drug problem and potentially have gotten in trouble with the law (his own brother was shot dead in 1990 in an act of random violence) and this lack of discipline could have prevented him from ascending to a superstar status.
I agree. I'm not a Laker fan, but the Celtics are my least favorite team by far, and listening to/reading their fans bemoan the loss of Bias as though he would've owned the league by himself for the entire nineties gets really annoying. I liked the statistical comparison - hadn't seen that before.
Bmao said:
On a lighter note.

You say there isn't any good old hatefests in the NBA? I watched through the whole Kobe-Shaq era and if that wasn't a hate fest, then I don't know what is.

Yet I admit that this generation of stars are more concerned with playing with one another (cough 'Lebron' cough) than wanting to beat one another.
Haha, Shaq/Kobe wasn't a team rivalry. Do you remember anything exciting happening when the Lakers played the Heat back in 2005? Me either. I was thinking more along the lines of "the stuff that happened between the Knicks and whoever they were playing that night" back in the nineties. (Stupid RileyBall.)
 
This has turned into a discussion more about the basketball than the drugs, but I am impressed with the basketball knowledge that has been displayed! What has gotten lost is the drug issue. If Len Bias lives I think it is safe to assume that he is going to have some drug related issues. There is a small chance that his crack experience may scare him away from drug use. If he ends up going to the hospital, but survives, he may realize that he dodged a bullet and never again use drugs. However the NBA and the Celtics will probably see him as a risk and what will that do to his NBA career? If he does not learn his lesson, he could end up as a tragic figure who threw away a promising career with his drug use. However does he go all of his life fighting and losing an addiction battle, or does he clean up at some point and use his experience and fame to try to help others?
 
A chance to talk about sports on AH.com? Excellent....

First, a little background on Bias the player. He was a spectacular athlete, an explosive slasher, and an aggressive defender. But he wasn't a great shooter or complete player. The idea that he would somehow equal Jordan or even Bird/Magic is ridiculous. It stems from a martyrdom complex among Boston area sports writers, especially Bill Simmons. Was Bias extremely talented? Yes. Was he capable of being an all-star? Yes. But was he capable of being an all-time great? Probably not. I would venture to guess that Paul Pierce was/is a better all-around player than Bias.

All that being said, Bias would have been a huge addition to the Boston Celtics late '80s rosters. In '87 it's unlikely he get's big minutes for the C's. Bird and McHale were locking down the 3 and 4 at a level rarely seen in NBA history. Also, Walton is still going to get a lot of minutes coming off the bench. So Bias probably starts the season as a role player, maybe evolving into a full-on 6th Man by the playoffs. He has the occasional "wow moment" but also makes a few head-scratching plays and fouls. But if all he does is lessen the burden on Bird, then that's a huge bonus. If Boston is healthy in the Finals, with Bird at close to 100% and Bias coming off the bench, then I think they win in 7.

Long run, Bias becomes the NBA's most explosive 6th Man since Hondo and allows Bird to extend his career into the mid-to-late '90s. At that point he steps in as a full-time starter who delights Boston fans. It's possible they win another title in the early '90s with Reggie Lewis at shooting guard. I doubt Bias gives them more than two more rings (one in '87, one in the early '90s) but he does prevent the '90s malaise in Boston. Bird and McHale's legacies are improved with Bias spelling them, and the Celtics continue their top-of-the league performance for a few more years. In the late '90s Bias makes a few all-star games, wins some slam dunk titles, and thrills the Garden.

Looking at a potential Bias-Jordan rivalry, it's important to note that the two were on completely different levels. Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all-time. Bias was a very talented slasher. The only competition would be psychological. The two would jaw up and down the court all game and in the press. Bias would be the face of Reebok, Jordan the face of Nike. They would both usher in an era of exciting street-ball style basketball, complete with the long shorts. But there is no comparison in terms of talent.

Finally the drugs piece. Bias's death raised awareness of the dangers of drug use, but this was the '80s. Most Americans already knew that you could easily OD and that drugs were pervasive among the highest levels of society. So Bias living does little to change that. In the end, maybe a few sports fans decide to do a line, but very little net impact.

P.S.: I'm a huge Celtics fan, but I think i''m objective enough to recognize that Bias was a good but not great player.
 
A chance to talk about sports on AH.com? Excellent....

First, a little background on Bias the player. He was a spectacular athlete, an explosive slasher, and an aggressive defender. But he wasn't a great shooter or complete player. The idea that he would somehow equal Jordan or even Bird/Magic is ridiculous. It stems from a martyrdom complex among Boston area sports writers, especially Bill Simmons. Was Bias extremely talented? Yes. Was he capable of being an all-star? Yes. But was he capable of being an all-time great? Probably not. I would venture to guess that Paul Pierce was/is a better all-around player than Bias.

All that being said, Bias would have been a huge addition to the Boston Celtics late '80s rosters. In '87 it's unlikely he get's big minutes for the C's. Bird and McHale were locking down the 3 and 4 at a level rarely seen in NBA history. Also, Walton is still going to get a lot of minutes coming off the bench. So Bias probably starts the season as a role player, maybe evolving into a full-on 6th Man by the playoffs. He has the occasional "wow moment" but also makes a few head-scratching plays and fouls. But if all he does is lessen the burden on Bird, then that's a huge bonus. If Boston is healthy in the Finals, with Bird at close to 100% and Bias coming off the bench, then I think they win in 7.

Long run, Bias becomes the NBA's most explosive 6th Man since Hondo and allows Bird to extend his career into the mid-to-late '90s. At that point he steps in as a full-time starter who delights Boston fans. It's possible they win another title in the early '90s with Reggie Lewis at shooting guard. I doubt Bias gives them more than two more rings (one in '87, one in the early '90s) but he does prevent the '90s malaise in Boston. Bird and McHale's legacies are improved with Bias spelling them, and the Celtics continue their top-of-the league performance for a few more years. In the late '90s Bias makes a few all-star games, wins some slam dunk titles, and thrills the Garden.

Looking at a potential Bias-Jordan rivalry, it's important to note that the two were on completely different levels. Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all-time. Bias was a very talented slasher. The only competition would be psychological. The two would jaw up and down the court all game and in the press. Bias would be the face of Reebok, Jordan the face of Nike. They would both usher in an era of exciting street-ball style basketball, complete with the long shorts. But there is no comparison in terms of talent.

Finally the drugs piece. Bias's death raised awareness of the dangers of drug use, but this was the '80s. Most Americans already knew that you could easily OD and that drugs were pervasive among the highest levels of society. So Bias living does little to change that. In the end, maybe a few sports fans decide to do a line, but very little net impact.

P.S.: I'm a huge Celtics fan, but I think i''m objective enough to recognize that Bias was a good but not great player.

That is the most reasoned, well thought out assessment of Bias' potential that I have read yet!

As for the drugs, being a teen in the 80s I do remember the rise of drug awareness as well as the death of Len Bias. I remember the "Just Say No" campaign also. Without the death of Bias and the knee jerk reaction from lawmakers there is a small potential for the crack cocaine penalties to not be as severe as OTL, but only a small chance.
 
This, aside from President Kennedy still being alive, a 20-something day Stock Market closure and the Obamas moving into the new White House. :)
Fringe%2BNews.jpg
 
Last edited:
Haha, Shaq/Kobe wasn't a team rivalry. Do you remember anything exciting happening when the Lakers played the Heat back in 2005? Me either. I was thinking more along the lines of "the stuff that happened between the Knicks and whoever they were playing that night" back in the nineties. (Stupid RileyBall.)

Sure: In 2004-2005, Shaq refered to Kobe driving to the hoop against him as a Corvette driving against a brick wall. Shaq repeated feigned ignorance of Kobe when he was asked about him.

Then in 2008, after the Lakers lost to the Celtics, Shaq waylaid Kobe with his infamous 'Tell me how my ass tastes' rap at a New York Night Club.

Then two years later, when Kobe was asked what his 5th ring meant to him personally, he said, 'I've got one more than Shaq'. Granted, by then, both were more nuanced in their rivalry, as opposed to when they were teammates.

As for rivalries. One I remember was that 2006 series when Raja Bell pulled that clotheline on Kobe in Game 5 of the WCQF and declared that Kobe was arrogant.

Or earlier, you had the whole Lakers-Kings rivalry, whose vitriol was especially legendary. Shaq had dubbed them the 'Sacramento Queens' and even made a rap about Vlade Divac after winning the championship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKhP3PnB_xM

Furthermore Kings fans to this day have alleged that there was a conspiracy between David Stern, the referees and the Laker management to prevent the Kings from reaching the finals, and with Game 6 as an especially aggregious example of poor officiating when the fact was that the Kings choked when it mattered the most; in that Game 7 Mike Bibby was the only guy who could hit big shots for them and when the Lakers covered him everyone else couldn't hit shots.

Rick Fox and Doug Christie also got into a fight in the tunnels after both had been ejected during the 2003 preseason. Christie was always a chicken-shit who talked big but then choked when it mattered the most.

Again, take into account that much of this is part of my pro-Laker bias.

You also had that Indiana-Detroit rivalry of the mid-2000s, which unfortunately culminated in the Malice at the Palace where Ron Artest literally duked it out with drunk Detroit fans with known criminal records, (or as he is now known nowadays, as Metta World Peace).

There was also that Spurs and Suns hatefest in the mid 2000s, with Robert Horry (oh Robert, why did you miss in Game 5 of 2003 WCSF?) putting that cheap shot on Steve Nash which Phoenix claimed prevented them from advancing to the finals in 2007. Or when Bruce Bowen kneed Nash in the crotch as well. Then again, Bruce Bowen was infamous for his cheap, dirty tactics when playing defense, like when he literally kicked Wally Sczerbiak in the face as he jumped to contest a shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edb6bz_C9ms

As for the Knicks of the 90s, all I've got to say about them was that they set back the NBA for years.

To respond to hcallega: I can respect Celtics fans who can analyze things in a rational members, unlike the unapologetically biased Bill Simmons (whose basically the Celtics' Minister of Propaganda) or worse the ESPN message boards that attract the most ignorant, trollish types. I guess the only LA equivalent would be JA Adande or the Kamenetsky brothers from ESPNLA but they can more nuanced.

As for Bias, I agree that he could have been an All-Star player, but by no means would he be at the same level as Jordan. The post I'd made earlier was based on the assumption that he did develop into an all-time great. I don't think that Bird plays until the mid-90s though. He'd be in his late 30s by then, but I think when he does retire in the early 90s he wouldn't have the same chronic back problems and he'd be a far healthier individual. Then again, Parish chugged along until 97, so who knows for sure.

One last thing: In 2008, admit that Paul Pierce faked his injury in Game 1. I mean, he collapses to the floor in what seems to be extreme agony and is then carted off in a wheelchair, and then only 3 minutes later he's completely fine and moving without a limp?:confused:
 
Top