Rank The Eras

[LosBulls]

Rank the best eras in terms of skill level and talent.

1. 80s-90s
2. 2000-Present
3. 90s-2000
4. Stone Age
5. Ice Age
6. Medieval Times
7. 40s-70s

http://memecrunch.com/meme/5PSL/u-mad-brah/image.png

[TheBigVeto]

Rank the best eras in terms of skill level and talent.

1. 80s-90s
2. 40s-70s
3. 90s-2000
4. Stone Age
5. Ice Age
6. Medieval Times
7. 2000-Present

http://memecrunch.com/meme/5PSL/u-mad-brah/image.png

FTFY brah.

[jongib369]

Rank the best eras in terms of skill level and talent.

1. 80s-90s
2. 2000-Present
3. 90s-2000
4. Stone Age
5. Ice Age
6. Medieval Times
7. 40s-70s

http://memecrunch.com/meme/5PSL/u-mad-brah/image.png

1.80's/90's
2.40's/70's
3.90's/2000's
4.2000-Present u mad brah?

I rank the 50's, 60's and 70's 2nd for guys like Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Nate Thurmond,Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Dr.J, Bill Walton, John Havlicek, Bob McAdoo, Walt Frazier, Lanier, Willis Reed, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas, Elmore Smith, Cowens, Nate Archibald,Artis Gilmore, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell , Gus Johnson, Bobby Jones, Connie Hawkins, Earl Monroe, Rick Barry ETC

I also respect the fact that the guys in the 60's faced there piers more often than any other decade...For example, Wilt VS Bill 142 total games...Wilt vs Kareem in just 4 years 28 games... those 2 players alone =170 games. 16% of wilts games he played just 2 players GOAT players. And thats not counting other HOF centers...and all the other matchups of all positions facing eachother often..just used that as a sample....Not knocking shaq here but if Im remembering correcting, he didnt go up against his top 8 competition 170 times...

I respect this era big time dont get me wrong, and its HARD for me to rank them...Big men back then >>!! today thats for sure...Just my opinion I could just be bat shit crazy :lol dont hate



Also to add just thought of this, a lot of the guys magic, Jordan, Bird faced in the very late 70's/80s were OLD 60s/70s players...they didn't dominate the league like it was filled with a bunch of D league players...Look at Era transition players Like Wilt, havlicek, Kareem, Gilmore ETC ETC and youll see that they could in fact ball in the later eras.

I'd say more and fine tune what I said to be more on point but I'm to lazy to write a bible :oldlol:

[SHAQisGOAT]

80's clearly above then it's pretty hard for me to rank the other ones.

[97 bulls]

80's clearly above then it's pretty hard for me to rank the other ones.
What makes the 80s better than the other decades?

[KOBE143]

00s - present - best/toughest era
90s - best era for rookie (96 draft)
80s - no defense era

gap

70s - waterdown era










gap









60s below - weak era

[SHAQisGOAT]

What makes the 80s better than the other decades?


Everything, general consensus among people that know basketball will say that the best decade is the 80's, why you're acting so suprised lol.

The 80's had amazingly deep teams filled with amazing players, yes there were bad teams but not as much as in every other era (on average), and almost no really terrible team.
Had like 4 of the GOAT teams in NBA history ('83 Sixers, '86 C's, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons).
Then you had other really good teams throughout the decade, at some point, like the Bucks (especially), the Rockets, the Hawks, the Mavs, the Nuggets, the Knicks...
The league wasn't watered down.
Filled of excitment with a lot of amazing players like, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Erving, Isiah, Wilkins, Moses, Worthy, McHale, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, English, Moncrief, Gervin, King, Dantley, Karl, Stock, Nance, Drexler, Aguirre..........
Rules wasn't for p**sies.
Historic and competitive contests and all star games.
You had it all.

[Pushxx]

1. 80s
2. 00s
3. Pre-80s
4. 90s

[jongib369]

1. 80s
2. 00s
3. Pre-80s
4. 90s
Not saying you're wrong but do you mind explaining why you ranks the 00's over the 90's?

:cheers:

[Pushxx]

Not saying you're wrong but do you mind explaining why you ranks the 00's over the 90's?

:cheers:

Mainly expansion teams. The gap between top level 90s talent and bottom level 90s talent is the biggest gap in NBA history.

[Freedom Kid7]

1. 80s
2. 90s
3. 60s
4. 00s
GAP
5. 70s (especially from 75 to 80)
6. pre-Bill Russell

[magnax1]

I'd chop up the time frame a bit differently
1-88-97
2-08-present
3-60-72 (could cut it off around 69 too I guess)
4-78-87
5-98-07
6-73-77
Reasoning- 88-97 (especially the middle part of it around 90-95) had what was probably the largest number of true super stars in the league, and the distribution of talent was very even
08-present
similar to 88-97, but fewer true superstars, and the bottom 10-20% of the league is very very weak. However 80% of the league is probably more competitive then it has ever been. I don't remember teams like Phoenix or GS before they tanked ever being so far from the playoff race with a reasonable record.
60-72
Excluding the Celtics, the talent was pretty evenly distributed, and had plenty of top tier players.
78-87
Reasonably amounts of talent, but for the most part it was very unevenly distributed. Celtics, Lakers, 6ers and Pistons were the only teams with championship caliber for pretty much all the 80s.
98-07
No clue why, but there is a pretty clear drop in talent here.
73-77
ABA took away about half the NBA's all star caliber players, so it's clear why this era sucks.

[Poetry]

Mainly expansion teams. The gap between top level 90s talent and bottom level 90s talent is the biggest gap in NBA history.

You are viewing things in an odd vacuum.

Say for instance, there was a university that only admitted 100 top qualified candidates a year. Then the next year they decide to admit 120 students. The fact that additional students were added to the ranks, doesn't suddenly mean the requirements for getting into the university are less stringent. And it doesn't mean those 20 student didn't exist. Or that another 200 behind them aren't waiting to get into the school too. It just means a larger number of deserving people were allowed into the school.

Likewise, in the NBA, the talent was always there at the college and alternative professional level, but the league was more exclusive. So fewer deserving players were getting into it.

For instance, say the NBA contracted. Does that all of sudden mean there will be less people trying to get into the league? That all of a sudden, that the thousands upon thousands of ballers trying to get into the league will suddenly give up. No it just means fewer will get in and will be distributed outside the NBA.

There are always guys knocking at the door, fighting tooth and nail to get into the league, deserving, talented players that just don't get in.

Look at the Raptors in their first year of existence. .256 W/L record (1995-96). Look at them in their 17th year of existence: .268 W/L (2010-11). They've come full circle over the course of their existence. Not every team in the league can have a winning percentage.

In 1995 there were 29 teams. The year before that, 27, i believe.

Today there are 30.

Based on what you think, the league today should technically be more watered down than it's ever been.

But that isn't the case either. 99% of the elite players, all-star players, great players and good players will get into the league regardless of how many teams there are.

The league now is about as competitive as it was then.

1995--13 sub .500 teams.
1996--13 sub .500 teams.

2010--14 sub .500 teams.
2009--13 sub .500 teams.

[Deuce Bigalow]

1.80's/90's
2.40's/70's
3.90's/2000's
4.2000-Present u mad brah?

I rank the 50's, 60's and 70's 2nd for guys like Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Nate Thurmond,Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Dr.J, Bill Walton, John Havlicek, Bob McAdoo, Walt Frazier, Lanier, Willis Reed, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas, Elmore Smith, Cowens, Nate Archibald,Artis Gilmore, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell , Gus Johnson, Bobby Jones, Connie Hawkins, Earl Monroe, Rick Barry ETC

I also respect the fact that the guys in the 60's faced there piers more often than any other decade...For example, Wilt VS Bill 142 total games...Wilt vs Kareem in just 4 years 28 games... those 2 players alone =170 games. 16% of wilts games he played just 2 players GOAT players. And thats not counting other HOF centers...and all the other matchups of all positions facing eachother often..just used that as a sample....Not knocking shaq here but if Im remembering correcting, he didnt go up against his top 8 competition 170 times...

I respect this era big time dont get me wrong, and its HARD for me to rank them...Big men back then >>!! today thats for sure...Just my opinion I could just be bat shit crazy :lol dont hate



Also to add just thought of this, a lot of the guys magic, Jordan, Bird faced in the very late 70's/80s were OLD 60s/70s players...they didn't dominate the league like it was filled with a bunch of D league players...Look at Era transition players Like Wilt, havlicek, Kareem, Gilmore ETC ETC and youll see that they could in fact ball in the later eras.

I'd say more and fine tune what I said to be more on point but I'm to lazy to write a bible :oldlol:
Thanks for the laugh

[DirtySanchez]

1. 80s
2. 90s
3. 60s
4. 00s
GAP
5. 70s (especially from 75 to 80)
6. pre-Bill Russell


THIS end thread

[MiamiThrice]

1. 80s
2. 60s
3. 00s
4. 90s
5. 70s

The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously. The 60s had some all-time legends, 70s had more parity than any other era.

[bdreason]

80's
00's
Present Time
90's
60's
70's
50's

[Poetry]

The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously.

There were always NBA level players on the fringes.

You make it seem like there were only 325 NBA level players back then, then the NBA suddenly expanded and they had to go to the unemployment lines to find filler to fill roster spots :coleman:

99% of top level talents were all in the NBA and the players at the bottom of the spectrum are mostly interchangeable with few exeptions.

Say there are somewhere between 360 and 450 employable NBA level players today depending on rosters and injuries, those at the bottom are interchangeable, but they've always existed. Before the D-League existed, there was the CBA. Before Europe 2012 existed, Europe 1995 existed. Etc, etc. And there are even more players available that could make it into the league in any given era.

Look at the NBA draft lists from the 1980's, those lists are like 160 players deep.

NBA level talents existed outside the NBA long before expansion. All expansion did was employ them.

[iamgine]

You are viewing things in an odd vacuum.

Say for instance, there was a university that only admitted 100 top qualified candidates a year. Then the next year they decide to admit 120 students. The fact that additional students were added to the ranks, doesn't suddenly mean the requirements for getting into the university are less stringent. And it doesn't mean those 20 student didn't exist. Or that another 200 behind them aren't waiting to get into the school too. It just means a larger number of deserving people were allowed into the school.

Likewise, in the NBA, the talent was always there at the college and alternative professional level, but the league was more exclusive. So fewer deserving players were getting into it.

For instance, say the NBA contracted. Does that all of sudden mean there will be less people trying to get into the league? That all of a sudden, that the thousands upon thousands of ballers trying to get into the league will suddenly give up. No it just means fewer will get in and will be distributed outside the NBA.

There are always guys knocking at the door, fighting tooth and nail to get into the league, deserving, talented players that just don't get in.

Look at the Raptors in their first year of existence. .256 W/L record (1995-96). Look at them in their 17th year of existence: .268 W/L (2010-11). They've come full circle over the course of their existence. Not every team in the league can have a winning percentage.

In 1995 there were 29 teams. The year before that, 27, i believe.

Today there are 30.

Based on what you think, the league today should technically be more watered down than it's ever been.

But that isn't the case either. 99% of the elite players, all-star players, great players and good players will get into the league regardless of how many teams there are.

The league now is about as competitive as it was then.

1995--13 sub .500 teams.
1996--13 sub .500 teams.

2010--14 sub .500 teams.
2009--13 sub .500 teams.
I think you miss the point. The same amount of talent spread over more teams will surely make the league more watered down. If we have 20 Lebrons spread over 10 teams, that would surely be less watered down than 20 Lebrons spread over 30 teams. That's strictly in terms of quality though.

Competitiveness doesn't have anything to do with this. If everyone sucks equally, the league would still be as competitive as ever.

[97 bulls]

Everything, general consensus among people that know basketball will say that the best decade is the 80's, why you're acting so suprised lol.
Id say that general consensus you're talking about is nothing but Lakers and Celtics fans that are bitter over the Bulls dominance of the 90s. A dominance that no team has ever had.


The 80's had amazingly deep teams filled with amazing players, yes there were bad teams but not as much as in every other era (on average), and almost no really terrible team.
The Western Conference in the 90s was terrible. There was no competition for the showtime Lakers. And the league was filled with guys strung out on cocaine.

Had like 4 of the GOAT teams in NBA history ('83 Sixers, '86 C's, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons).
This doesn't mean the League was better. Perhaps you can enlighten how four teams can make a whole decade.


Then you had other really good teams throughout the decade, at some point, like the Bucks (especially), the Rockets, the Hawks, the Mavs, the Nuggets, the Knicks...
The league wasn't watered down.
Another myth perpetuated by Laker and Celtics fans. There were more athletes playing basketball in the 90s. And the talent pool increased.

Filled of excitment with a lot of amazing players like, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Erving, Isiah, Wilkins, Moses, Worthy, McHale, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, English, Moncrief, Gervin, King, Dantley, Karl, Stock, Nance, Drexler, Aguirre..........
This is a preference. Doesn't mean the 80s is the best due to it possessing your favorite players.


Rules wasn't for p**sies.
All decades have had rule changes. The 80s was no exception.


Historic and competitive contests and all star games.
LOL really?
You had it all.
No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.

[97 bulls]

I think you miss the point. The same amount of talent spread over more teams will surely make the league more watered down. If we have 20 Lebrons spread over 10 teams, that would surely be less watered down than 20 Lebrons spread over 30 teams. That's strictly in terms of quality though.

Competitiveness doesn't have anything to do with this. If everyone sucks equally, the league would still be as competitive as ever.
So how can you determine the NBA in the 90s was picking from the same talent as the 80s?

[97 bulls]

1. 80s
2. 60s
3. 00s
4. 90s
5. 70s

The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously. The 60s had some all-time legends, 70s had more parity than any other era.
The 90s had plenty of international players like the 00s. And they had great centers like the other eras.

Going by your theory, the league waas at its best during the 50s. That's when it had the fewest teams.

[iamgine]

So how can you determine the NBA in the 90s was picking from the same talent as the 80s?
Whaa...

[97 bulls]

Whaa...
Exactly. You don't know what you're talking about

[BuffaloBill]

Rank the best eras in terms of skill level and talent.

1. 80s-90s
2. 2000-Present
3. 90s-2000
4. Stone Age
5. Ice Age
6. Medieval Times
7. 40s-70s




Medieval Times >>> Ice Age. And it's not even close. :facepalm

[nycelt84]

No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.

When you say the Bulls had a dominance no team has ever had before it seems to me you forgot the part where 1 team won 8 straight titles and 11 out of 13 neither which the Bulls did.

[iamgine]

Exactly. You don't know what you're talking about
:roll:

[Nevaeh]

Everything, general consensus among people that know basketball will say that the best decade is the 80's, why you're acting so suprised lol.

The 80's had amazingly deep teams filled with amazing players, yes there were bad teams but not as much as in every other era (on average), and almost no really terrible team.
Had like 4 of the GOAT teams in NBA history ('83 Sixers, '86 C's, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons).
Then you had other really good teams throughout the decade, at some point, like the Bucks (especially), the Rockets, the Hawks, the Mavs, the Nuggets, the Knicks...
The league wasn't watered down.
Filled of excitment with a lot of amazing players like, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Erving, Isiah, Wilkins, Moses, Worthy, McHale, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, English, Moncrief, Gervin, King, Dantley, Karl, Stock, Nance, Drexler, Aguirre..........
Rules wasn't for p**sies.
Historic and competitive contests and all star games.
You had it all.

Don't forget that fundamentals were at an all-time high back then too. Plus, coaches were way more respected back then, and would bench you in a heartbeat for slacking.

[Money 23]

1) '89 - '95
2) 2008 - Current
3) '84 - '88
4) '96 - '98
5) 2004 - 2007
6) '99 - 2003


I think the way the OP described the eras is a bit too vague for my liking. I also can only judge what I've seen in context ('84 - '88 being seen mostly on replay)

I didn't see much else prior ... but I can say that from what I've seen ... I feel '89 - '95 had the best distribution of talent through out the league. No top heavy super teams like '84 - '88 or 2008 - current. True superstars, and IMO the greatest balance of athleticism, size, positional talent, skill, and basketball IQ of all the eras in discussion.

Also, 1999 till 2003 is easily the worst era of basketball I've ever seen.

The game at that time was sloppy, basketball IQ and skills eroded with the inclusion of massive amounts of premature HS draft class players, who were selected off potential and versatile athleticism instead of actual basketball skills and abilities. All that in clash with a generation of talent trying too hard to be like MJ, instead of playing solid team basketball killed the quality of the game for a good period of time. Not to mention simple basketball skills like defensive fundamentals, ability to hit jump shots were all evaporating from league play.

2004 - 2007 was only slightly better, but all the weak rule changes made the game even more difficult to watch for a period of time. I think things started picking up for the better in 2008 once the super Celtics squad formed, the Lakers improved w/ the addition of Gasol, and the rules and caliber of play all balanced out. Plus then in turn forcing the likes of the individual stars of smaller market teams, with bad rosters, such as LeBron / Wade and Bosh to coming together to stay competitive in a rapidly changing top heavy league.

2008 - Current is very much like the league was from '84 - '88.

[SHAQisGOAT]

No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.


80's were the best decade, get over it and stop making ridiculous claims.

[swi7ch]

90s = best because that's the era the unanimous GOAT played in

[Nevaeh]

90s = best because that's the era the unanimous GOAT played in

90s was definitely the most popular. But best? From an overall B-ball standpoint? I don't think so. Big money kinda f@cked the game up for a while, with guys thinking they were great based more on their bank accounts than their actual game on the court.

[Money 23]

90s was definitely the most popular. But best? From an overall B-ball standpoint? I don't think so. Big money kinda f@cked the game up for a while, with guys thinking they were great based more on their bank accounts than their actual game on the court.
:biggums:

You're talking late 90's and all the money being spread around that MJ made for the league as a whole, which as you explained made many athletes complacent in their skills and abilities.

But surely you jest. From a Bball standpoint? The early to mid 90's was possibly the pinnacle of basketball, in my opinion. It has the fundamentals and skills / style of the 80's. Fused with new strategies and modern and more sophisticated team defensive approaches. Dominant big men still ruled the game, while dynamic wing and perimeter players were a plenty as well.

Modern athleticism was showcased quite a bit, but balanced out with role players with actual college basketball experience which made them smarter and more well rounded players with true niches in a team structue. Not so much uber versatile athletes, but better BASKETBALL players.

To me '89 - '95 was the right mix of pretty much all the positives from all the eras, with little of their weaknesses.

[97 bulls]

When you say the Bulls had a dominance no team has ever had before it seems to me you forgot the part where 1 team won 8 straight titles and 11 out of 13 neither which the Bulls did.
No I didn't. I think teams were more competitive in the modern era. The Bulls set single season records for wins, and differential. And they brought the game to a whole new level. Had Jordan not retired, the Bulls could've won 8 straight championships.

[97 bulls]

80's were the best decade, get over it and stop making ridiculous claims.
What ridiculous claims? There's nothing that makes the 80s better than another ddecade.

[Vertical-24]

- Early to mid-90s
- 00s - Present
- 80s
- 60s
- 70s
- 40s/50s

[andgar923]

I'd chop up the time frame a bit differently
1-88-97
2-08-present
3-60-72 (could cut it off around 69 too I guess)
4-78-87
5-98-07
6-73-77
Reasoning- 88-97 (especially the middle part of it around 90-95) had what was probably the largest number of true super stars in the league, and the distribution of talent was very even
08-present
similar to 88-97, but fewer true superstars, and the bottom 10-20% of the league is very very weak. However 80% of the league is probably more competitive then it has ever been. I don't remember teams like Phoenix or GS before they tanked ever being so far from the playoff race with a reasonable record.
60-72
Excluding the Celtics, the talent was pretty evenly distributed, and had plenty of top tier players.
78-87
Reasonably amounts of talent, but for the most part it was very unevenly distributed. Celtics, Lakers, 6ers and Pistons were the only teams with championship caliber for pretty much all the 80s.
98-07
No clue why, but there is a pretty clear drop in talent here.
73-77
ABA took away about half the NBA's all star caliber players, so it's clear why this era sucks.

This is closer to the truth.

We can't group an entire decade. Eras are usually divided into smaller timeframes and split up across decades, just like with music.

[andgar923]

:biggums:

You're talking late 90's and all the money being spread around that MJ made for the league as a whole, which as you explained made many athletes complacent in their skills and abilities.

But surely you jest. From a Bball standpoint? The early to mid 90's was possibly the pinnacle of basketball, in my opinion. It has the fundamentals and skills / style of the 80's. Fused with new strategies and modern and more sophisticated team defensive approaches. Dominant big men still ruled the game, while dynamic wing and perimeter players were a plenty as well.

Modern athleticism was showcased quite a bit, but balanced out with role players with actual college basketball experience which made them smarter and more well rounded players with true niches in a team structue. Not so much uber versatile athletes, but better BASKETBALL players.

To me '89 - '95 was the right mix of pretty much all the positives from all the eras, with little of their weaknesses.

This.

And you touched on the reasons why.

it was the combination of 80s style of play, teamwork, fundamentals, but with a more advanced defense and superior athletes on a broader scale.

Nutrition, training and technology were improved and resembled closer to what we have today.

[iamgine]

The more a single team dominates its peers, the less competitive the league is.

[Money 23]

The more a single team dominates its peers, the less competitive the league is.
That's not true at all ...

Miami will probably be headed to their third straight Finals this year.

Weak competitive league? Hardly.

2008 Boston Celtics, barring KG's injury in 2009 was basically competing for a ring every season for the past 4 years.

Lakers went to three straight Finals in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

[iamgine]

That's not true at all ...

Miami will probably be headed to their third straight Finals this year.

Weak competitive league? Hardly.

2008 Boston Celtics, barring KG's injury in 2009 was basically competing for a ring every season for the past 4 years.

Lakers went to three straight Finals in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Winning rings does not automatically equal domination.

[Money 23]

Winning rings does not automatically equal domination.
LOL ... then what is domination? Do explain.

[RaininTwos]

So many agendas

[nycelt84]

No I didn't. I think teams were more competitive in the modern era. The Bulls set single season records for wins, and differential. And they brought the game to a whole new level. Had Jordan not retired, the Bulls could've won 8 straight championships.

Thoughts and speculation. I don't care about could have won 8 straight because he didn't. Whether teams are or we're more competive is a thought. A team actually did win 8 straight and 11 out of 13, neither which has ever been approached since.

[AK47DR91]

Not saying you're wrong but do you mind explaining why you ranks the 00's over the 90's?

:cheers:
Of course a Celtics fan would not rank the 90's high. :lol

[The Real JW]

1. 2000-09
2. 1980-89
3. 1990-99
4. 1960-69
5. 1970-79
...
9001. 2010-present
9002. 1940-49
9003. 1950-59

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

1) '89 - '95
2) 2008 - Current
3) '84 - '88
4) '96 - '98
5) 2004 - 2007
6) '99 - 2003

This.

[The Real JW]

If we go by rings (in usual ISH fashion) I'd say the 90s had the coolest though.

http://i.imgur.com/MCLC4l.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/MCLC4.jpg)

I mean look at that '93 Bulls ring. Pure sex.

http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m-7agEJawfk1SP6pinvTo7Q.jpg

[AK47DR91]

1. 1984-1990
2. 1991-1998
3. 2008-present
4. 1999-2007
5. 1960-'69

[iamgine]

LOL ... then what is domination? Do explain.
Simply winning in a dominating fashion.

[Poetry]

So many agendas

lol...seriously :lol

I find it interesting that people who didn't exist during certain eras can rank them. Only on the internet can someone be an expert with zero experience to back it up.

[Round Mound]

1. 80s
2. 90s
3. 60s
4. 00s
GAP
5. 70s (especially from 75 to 80)
6. pre-Bill Russell

:bowdown:

[magnax1]

I do have to say that there has been a very clear development in team basketball that has developed very evenly over the decades. As in, team defense and offense pretty much plays out like 00s>90s>80s> etc, but the actual ability of individual players on average for each decade is pretty even, though a little bit different. Mostly because of the growth of the number of teams as the leagues talent level grows.

[Legends66NBA7]

So many agendas

True, but there's always consensus in these things, eventually.

Whether someone wants to follow the norm is completely up to them. It's pretty much subjective.

[BigMic]

1 - 80's
2 - 90's
3 - 70's
4 - 00's
5 - 50's/60's

[Magic 32]

The worst era: 1996-2003. Just look at the teams making it to the finals (outside of Bulls and Lakers).

[Money 23]

The worst era: 1996-2003. Just look at the teams making it to the finals (outside of Bulls and Lakers).
96 Sonics
95 / 96 Magic
97 Heat
96 / 97 / 98 / 99 Knicks
97 / 98 / 99 Jazz
98 / 99 / 2000 Pacers
97 / 98 / 99 Lakers
99 / 2000 Suns
99 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 Spurs
2002 Kings

Were all some really good teams, but yea I'd be inclined to agree. I think play got worse during and after the lockout season.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

96 Sonics
95 / 96 Magic
97 Heat
96 / 97 / 98 / 99 Knicks
97 / 98 / 99 Jazz
98 / 99 / 2000 Pacers
97 / 98 / 99 Lakers
99 / 2000 Suns
99 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 Spurs
2002 Kings

Were all some really good teams, but yea I'd be inclined to agree. I think play got worse during and after the lockout season.

Yea. I mean in a vacuum I'd agree that the late 80's-early 90's were the pinnacle of basketball..followed by present day bball and then the early 80's and late 90's.

The problem with these rankings, though, is every generation produces an elite (legendary) team or two. Moreso players. Guys like Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Kareem, West, Erving, Moses, Stockton, etc. would dominate in any ERA.

[Jax]

1.Jordan Dynasty
2.Shaq-fu Dynasty
3.James Dynasty
4.Russel Dynasty
5.pre-Russel Dynasty

[DuMa]

Ive only watched the latter 80s, whole 90s and 00s and current. I dont understand how anyone can judge or compare an era if they never watched it.

the 80s and 90s completely shit on the 00s and current era but current era has a lot of potential. maybe if we get handchecking back and more dominant center players again, it will certainly become a throwback era.