Myth Exposed: ALL of the expansion players were already NBA players

[3ball]

From Wiki:



In an NBA expansion draft, new NBA teams are allowed to acquire players from the previously established teams in the league. Not all players on a given team are available during an expansion draft, since each team can protect a certain number of players from being selected. In the 1988 expansion draft, each of the twenty-three other NBA teams protected eight players from their roster and the Timberwolves and the Magic selected eleven and twelve unprotected players respectively, one from each team.



Here are all of the players selected in the 1988, 1989, and 1995 expansion drafts - virtually ALL players were already NBA players:

1988: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_NBA_Expansion_Draft
1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_NBA_Expansion_Draft
1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NBA_Expansion_Draft


One of the last remaining myths of new fans... DESTROYED... :banana:

[Levity]

excuse my ignorance... but what the fck is the myth?

[sd3035]

never heard this "myth" before lol

[Smoke117]

Cool beans...tell me more?

[HurricaneKid]

excuse my ignorance... but what the fck is the myth?

I too would like to thank 3Ball for destroying that strawman.

Its what the expansion draft IS.

[3ball]

excuse my ignorance... but what the fck is the myth?
The myth is that expansion made the NBA weaker because they had to start picking up bums off the street or overseas players.

But it turns out that virtually all of the expansion players were already existing, NBA players, simply drafted from other teams that left them "unprotected".

So expansion didn't make the NBA weaker than it is today - there were 30 teams in the NBA back then (post-expansion), and 30 teams now - so the top 450 players (15 per team) made the NBA then and now.. There's zero difference.

However, even though expansion didn't make the league any weaker than today's fully-expanded game (30 teams), it did make the league weaker than PRE-expansion days, like the 80's, when there were only 20 teams.. With only 20 teams, that means 150 players from today's fully-expanded league wouldn't make the NBA in the 80's.

[Smoke117]

excuse my ignorance... but what the fck is the myth?

He's basically trying to dispute the common knowledge that the talent was watered down (it was) during the Bulls 2nd three peat. This thread only has one purpose...which is the same purpose of all his threads: to prop up Jordie.

[3ball]

He's basically trying to dispute the narrative of new fans that the talent was watered down during the Bulls 2nd three peat.


The myth created by new fans is that expansion made the NBA weaker because they had to start picking up bums off the street or overseas players.

But it turns out that virtually all of the expansion players were already existing, NBA players, simply drafted from other teams that left them "unprotected".

So expansion didn't make the NBA weaker than it is today - there were 30 teams in the NBA back then (post-expansion), and 30 teams now - so the top 450 players (15 per team) made the NBA then and now.. There's zero difference.

However, even though expansion didn't make the league any weaker than today's fully-expanded game (30 teams), it did make the league weaker than PRE-expansion days, like the 80's, when there were only 20 teams.. With only 20 teams, that means 150 players from today's fully-expanded league wouldn't make the NBA in the 80's.

[Vaniiiia]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jordan+got+his+father+killed+over+gambling+debt s+

[Smoke117]

The myth created by new fans is that expansion made the NBA weaker because they had to start picking up bums off the street or overseas players.

But it turns out that virtually all of the expansion players were already existing, NBA players, simply drafted from other teams that left them "unprotected".

So expansion didn't make the NBA weaker than it is today - there were 30 teams in the NBA back then (post-expansion), and 30 teams now - so the top 450 players (15 per team) made the NBA then and now.. There's zero difference.

However, even though expansion didn't make the league any weaker than today's fully-expanded game (30 teams), it did make the league weaker than PRE-expansion days, like the 80's, when there were only 20 teams.. With only 20 teams, that means 150 players from today's fully-expanded league wouldn't make the NBA in the 80's.

I'm not a new fan, playboy. Scottie Pippen is my favorite player of all time...why would I want to bash the bulls for no reason? That would just reflecty poorly on him too, no? It's just a simple fact that the late 90s was watered down because of expansion. The bulls fed on and propped up their record on a lot of them. This can't be disputed.

You bringing up that they were already NBA players means nothing. They were the garbage left overs...the 11th, 12th guys on teams. You are literally disputing nothing, so shut your pie hole and move on.

[sd3035]

Were gambling debts easier to pay off before the expansion?

[ShawkFactory]

The myth is not that these teams had bums from the streets. The FACT is that they were new franchises working out kinks with a random collection of players.

I would love to hear two expansion teams in the modern era that were a force right away. The Marlins are the only one I can think of and they spent an amazing amount of money. Hardly the case for those new NBA teams playing in a sport completely devoid of a cap with a lot more money in general than the NBA had....in a town with a lot of people and money.

[3ball]

You bringing up that they were already NBA players means nothing. They were the garbage left overs...the 11th, 12th guys on teams.


So a league with 450 NBA players is softer than a league with 450 NBA players just because.... you said so?

Every league has bottom feeders.. There were 450 players in the league then and now - there's no difference.. You just refuse to accept the facts due to dumbness and/or bias.

You claim your favorite player is Pippen - that's all anyone needs to know to know you're a bitch... Bitch game recognize bitch game.

[SouBeachTalents]

So a league with 450 NBA players is softer than a league with 450 NBA players just because.... you said so?

Every league has bottom feeders.. There were 450 players in the league then and now - there's no difference.. You just refuse to accept the facts due to dumbness and/or bias.

You claim your favorite player is Pippen - that's all anyone needs to know to know you're a bitch... Bitch game recognize bitch game.

Then what does that say about your boy when that "bitch" made it past the first round without Jordan, but Jordan couldn't do the same without him?

[Smoke117]

So a league with 450 NBA players is softer than a league with 450 NBA players just because.... you said so?

Every league has bottom feeders.. There were 450 players in the league then and now - there's no difference.. You just refuse to accept the facts due to dumbness and/or bias.

You claim your favorite player is Pippen - that's all anyone needs to know to know you're a bitch... Bitch game recognize bitch game.

Yeah...one of the greatest defensive players of all time, a guy who put his body on the line taking charges from a mack truck like Karl Malone...is a bitch.

http://media.giphy.com/media/LVIbmaUwpRJ1C/giphy.gif


As far as what you are babbling on about...what does the league now have to do with anything? Were talking about when the expansion teams first came onto the scene. The talent is obviously more spread out evenly now that the expansion teams are established, you dimwit.

[3ball]

The talent is obviously more spread out evenly now that the expansion teams are established, you dimwit.


In Charlotte's first year, they won 20 games in 1989 using NBA players - specifically, how is that different from a team nowadays winning 20 games using NBA players?.. Both teams are winning 20 games using 15 of the top 450 players in the world.. There's no difference..

Btw, I'm quite certain that Charlotte in 1989 was better than Charlotte in 2012.

Also, I don't think that teams who get 7 wins or 12 wins in today's game would think the talent is evenly spread out - various established teams in today's game have lower win totals than first-year expansion teams.. That's just the way the world works - there are ALWAYS bottom-feeders who are left with the scraps.

A team that wins 12 games today using NBA players is no different from a team that wins 12 games using NBA players back then.. For you to act like there's a difference is dumb and/or biased.

[ShawkFactory]

In Charlotte's first year, they won 20 games in 1989 using NBA players - specifically, how is that different from a team nowadays winning 20 games using NBA players?.. Both teams are winning 20 games using 15 of the top 450 players in the world.. There's no difference..

Btw, I'm quite certain that Charlotte in 1989 was better than Charlotte in 2012.

Also, I don't think that teams who get 7 wins or 12 wins in today's game would think the talent is evenly spread out - various established teams in today's game have lower win totals than first-year expansion teams.. That's just the way the world works - there are ALWAYS bottom-feeders who are left with the scraps.

A team that wins 12 games today using NBA players is no different from a team that wins 12 games using NBA players back then.. For you to act like there's a difference is dumb and/or biased.
There's not enough 'smh'es in the world for you.

[3ball]

Yeah...Pippen was one of the greatest defensive players of all time, a guy who put his body on the line taking charges from a mack truck like Karl Malone...is a bitch.


What a pathetic defense of your supposed "favorite player".. In the 1989 ECF against the Bad Boys, Pippen disappeared and averaged 10/7 on 40% - he gave zero help for MJ... But that's your favorite player... :rolleyes:

Then he disappeared again in the 1990 ECF with 2 points on 1-10 in Game 7, which cost the Bulls the NBA championship (since they would've beaten Blazers in Finals, given they took Pistons 7 and Blazers lost in 6).

Then he had one of the greatest chokes and meltdowns of all time when he refused to enter the game on the last possession in Game 3 of 1994 second round - fortunately, Kukoc hit the walk-off to prevent the Knicks from going up 3-0 and sweeping...

Of course, there's the 1996 Finals - THE worst performance by a 2nd option ever - 15 ppg on 34% shooting... ugh... He duplicated this performance in the 1998 Finals... For Pippen's entire career, he let MJ take every big shot - he never hit a big shot in his entire career.

[3ball]

There's not enough 'smh'es in the world for you.
smh all you want, whatever that means...

Just make sure you never call the 90's watered down again - I have disproved it - after expansion, there were 450 NBA players, just like today... No difference... Now carry on..

[Blue&Orange]

The talent is obviously more spread out evenly now that the expansion teams are established, you dimwit.
Let me see if i understand this, you are trying to say that a league with 30 teams was watered down compared to a league with 30 teams. You're a ****ing genius.

Teams are established today? At what? tanking?


It' because of idiots like you that 3ball exist.


The bulls fed on and propped up their record on a lot of them. This can't be disputed.

The only thing that can't be disputed is your stupidity and ignorance. Bulls fed on weaker teams? no shit sherlock.

What you'r opinion on Lebron feeding on the historically weak eastern conference for all his career and the absolute trash southeast division was when he was on the Heat?

[3ball]

I'm not a new fan, playboy. Scottie Pippen is my favorite player of all time...why would I want to bash the bulls for no reason?

You bringing up that they were already NBA players means nothing.


Btw, Smoke - the Bulls 3-peated from 1991-1993 when there was only 27 teams, less than today's 30 teams - so are you going to give them CREDIT for 3-peating in a less-diluted league?

As you can see, your misperception of expansion actually HELPS Jordan... Thanks for making me realize this - you've strengthened all my arguments... Good-lookin out boss.. :pimp:

[warriorfan]

When 3ball provides hard evidence and some people still refuse to listen. :facepalm

[dhsilv]

From Wiki:



In an NBA expansion draft, new NBA teams are allowed to acquire players from the previously established teams in the league. Not all players on a given team are available during an expansion draft, since each team can protect a certain number of players from being selected. In the 1988 expansion draft, each of the twenty-three other NBA teams protected eight players from their roster and the Timberwolves and the Magic selected eleven and twelve unprotected players respectively, one from each team.



Here are all of the players selected in the 1988, 1989, and 1995 expansion drafts - virtually ALL players were already NBA players:

1988: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_NBA_Expansion_Draft
1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_NBA_Expansion_Draft
1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NBA_Expansion_Draft


One of the last remaining myths of new fans... DESTROYED... :banana:

Me thinks you don't know how expansion waters down the game....like really this might be the dumbest post ever.

[Smoke117]

3ball is literally sitting here bringing up 1989 like that means something...

I also love how you haters always bring up the 94 playoff incident. Only a hater would define one of the most unselfish careers a star has ever had by one bone headed selfish mistake. People come here saying 3ball knows what he's talking about and maybe he does when it involves Jordan, but if it doesn't, he's a complete ****ing imbecile. This thread is destroying my brain cells, so I bid it adieu.

[dhsilv]

He's basically trying to dispute the common knowledge that the talent was watered down (it was) during the Bulls 2nd three peat. This thread only has one purpose...which is the same purpose of all his threads: to prop up Jordie.

Should we explain to the players who were "drafted" had to be replaced or is that too complex for him to get? Or that new teams were added to the draft reducing talent moving in to replace retired players? That might be long division kinda hard though....?

[dhsilv]

Btw, Smoke - the Bulls 3-peated from 1991-1993 when there was only 27 teams, less than today's 30 teams - so are you going to give them CREDIT for 3-peating in a less-diluted league?

As you can see, your misperception of expansion actually HELPS Jordan... Thanks for making me realize this - you've strengthened all my arguments... Good-lookin out boss.. :pimp:

Except the league had JUST added two new teams 2-3 years before that....

[ShawkFactory]

smh all you want, whatever that means...

Just make sure you never call the 90's watered down again - I have disproved it - after expansion, there were 450 NBA players, just like today... No difference... Now carry on..
You're so offended...even though I never said anything close to that :lol

I wonder what kind of life you lead if this is your game.

[NZStreetBaller]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/3rgXBzbbM4NmbgvMre" width="480" height="257" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/sbnation-3rgXBzbbM4NmbgvMre">via GIPHY</a></p>

[iamgine]

So a league with 450 NBA players is softer than a league with 450 NBA players just because...
It's because guys who were getting 0 minutes suddenly gets 30 minutes.

[sdot_thadon]

Not to mention teams draw from a much larger talent pool now. Where did all those replacements for the draft come from?

[bdreason]

Early 90's was definitely a transition period for the NBA. There were some great players from the decade, especially bigs, but not many great teams.

I'm not sure the modern NBA has many great teams either, but there are certainly a lot of very good teams. I've been watching the NBA since the late 80's, and I've never seen anything like the modern day Western Conference.

[3ball]

I've been watching the NBA since the late 80's, and I've never seen anything like the modern day Western Conference.


You memory is short or doesn't extend back far enough - today's WC has 5 teams that won 55+ gamees.

1998 WC also had 5 teams that won 55+ games including Utah Jazz, Popovich's Spurs with Duncan/Robinson, Payton/Kemp/Schrempf Sonics, Shaq's 4 all-star Lakers, and McDyess/Jason Kidd's Phoenix Suns.

For Utah to make the Finals in 1998, they had to beat Hakeem's Rockets, Popovich/Duncan/Robinson Spurs, and Shaq's Lakers (his most stacked team ever).. No team has ever had to defeat this much talent JUST TO MAKE the Finals (Utah defeated three top 10 all-time players - Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem.. and faced a 4th in the Finals).
.

[bdreason]

You memory is short or doesn't extend back far enough - today's WC has 5 teams that won 55+ gamees... And those teams happen to also be the 5 teams that would be considered "good".

1998 also had 5 teams that won 55+ games including Utah Jazz, Popovich's Spurs with Duncan/Robinson, Payton/Kemp/Schrempf Sonics, Shaq's 4 all-star Lakers, and McDyess/Jason Kidd's Phoenix Suns.

For Utah to make the Finals in 1998, they had to beat Hakeem's Rockets, Popovich/Duncan/Robinson Spurs, and Shaq's Lakers (his most stacked team ever).. No team has ever had to defeat this much talent JUST TO MAKE the Finals.
.


My memory is just fine. I was in high school in the late 90's and basketball was my life. The modern Western Conference has 9 teams capable of 50+ wins. The late 90's Western Conference was a 4-horse race.

[3ball]

It's because guys who were getting 0 minutes suddenly gets 30 minutes.


It's just not true - expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams - today's game has more really bad teams with very low win totals:


Teams with less than 25 wins in 2015 (teams with less than 20 wins highlighted in red):

MIN: 15 wins
NYK: 17 wins
PHI: 18 wins
LAL: 21 wins
ORL: 25 wins


Teams with less than 25 wins in 1989:

MIA: 15 wins
CHA: 20 wins
LAC: 21 wins
SAS: 21 wins


Were MIN, NYK, and PHI expansion teams in 2015???... Nope - just really bad teams.. As you can see, 2015 has more teams with less than 20 wins and more teams with less than 25 wins.. Expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams.
.

[3ball]

The 2015 Western Conference has 9 teams capable of 50+ wins. The late 90's Western Conference was a 4-horse race.


Capable??... Who decides if they're capable... You???... In reality, there were 7 teams with over 50 wins in 2015 WC, not 9.. There were 6 teams with over 50 wins in 1994 WC too.. So what's your point?...

Btw, the 2015 western conference was ALSO a 4-horse race.. Teams like Portland had no chance (but you're clearly biased, so you probably counted them as a contender).

Also, in 1998 - the year we were comparing to 2015 - there were 10 teams TOTAL that won 55+ (counting both conferences), which is the same as 2015... And there were 5 teams that won 55+ in the WC, which is the same as 2015.

Btw, the Utah Jazz defeated three top 10 all-time players just to MAKE the Finals in 1998 (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan)... Then they faced a 4th in the Finals (MJ).. No team has ever defeated three top 10 all-time players on a playoff run, and no team has ever faced four top 10 all-time players - that's a testament to how many great players and good teams there were at that time.
.

[iamgine]

It's just not true - expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams - today's game has more really bad teams with very low win totals
.
Um yes it does. Bad teams creation can happen in many ways, expansion is one of them. It can also happen via: tanking (PHI), bad management (Sac, Min, NYK), injuries, etc.

[3ball]

Um yes it does. Bad teams creation can happen in many ways, expansion is one of them. It can also happen via: tanking (PHI), bad management (Sac, Min, NYK), injuries, etc.
There were less bad teams during the expansion years than 2015, which proves you wrong:


Teams with less than 25 wins in 2015 (teams with less than 20 wins highlighted in red):

MIN: 15 wins
NYK: 17 wins
PHI: 18 wins
LAL: 21 wins
ORL: 25 wins


Teams with less than 25 wins in 1989:

MIA: 15 wins
CHA: 20 wins
LAC: 21 wins
SAS: 21 wins


Of course, we know that MIN, NYK, and PHI were expansion teams in 2015 - just look at their horrible records... Oh wait.. Nope - they were just really bad teams.. As you can see, 2015 has more teams with less than 20 wins and more teams with less than 25 wins.. Expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams.

[iamgine]

Teams with less than 25 wins in 2015 (teams with less than 20 wins highlighted in red):

MIN: 15 wins
NYK: 17 wins
PHI: 18 wins
LAL: 21 wins
ORL: 25 wins


Teams with less than 25 wins in 1989:

MIA: 15 wins
CHA: 20 wins
LAC: 21 wins
SAS: 21 wins


Were MIN, NYK, and PHI expansion teams in 2015???... Nope - just really bad teams.. As you can see, 2015 has more teams with less than 20 wins and more teams with less than 25 wins.. Expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams.
Bad teams creation can happen in many ways, expansion is one of them. It can also happen via: tanking (PHI), bad management (Sac, Min, NYK), injuries, etc.

[el gringos]

Yeah sure expansion draft players were nba players but not rotation players or top young prospects.

Pick 8 guys each team would save now and do the same type draft for 2 new teams and then see if those teams look good on paper

[3ball]

Bad teams creation can happen in many ways, expansion is one of them.

Bad teams in today's era happen via: tanking (PHI), bad management (Sac, Min, NYK), injuries, etc.


Ah yes, the sweet smell of excuses (in the trolling game, that means victory).

So we've established that today's league has more bad teams than the expansion years - but instead of conceding my point that 450 NBA players in each era means that it's all equal, you decide to make excuses for WHY today's league has more bad teams:

Apparently, the super-tough, post-expansion era has "tanking, bad management, and more injuries".. That could be a thread - you should start it.

:roll:

[ShawkFactory]

3dongs is an expert of not addressing anyone else's point

[3ball]

3dongs is an expert of not addressing anyone else's point
What point do you want me to address?

I just got iamgine to say that today's so-called tough era has "tanking, bad management, and more injuries" - this was his excuse for why today's league has more bad teams then the expansion years.. I gotta tell ya, I'm quite satisfied with this.

[iamgine]

Ah yes, the sweet smell of excuses (in the trolling game, that means victory).

So we've established that today's league has more bad teams than the expansion years - but instead of conceding my point that 450 NBA players in each era means that it's all equal, you decide to make excuses for WHY today's league has more bad teams:

Apparently, the super-tough, post-expansion era has "tanking, bad management, and more injuries".. That could be a thread - you should start it.

I'm not sure of your point. Excuse about what? And why would anyone create a thread about that?

I'm just pointing out that expansion create bad teams. Just like some other factors. To say otherwise is just false.

[3ball]

I'm just pointing out that expansion create bad teams. Just like some other factors. To say otherwise is just false.


Expansion didn't create more bad teams than there are today.

Infact, the win-loss records show that there are MORE bad teams today than the years the league expanded, probably because of what you said - tanking, bad management, and more injuries (i.e. more fragile, less-resilient, pampered players).

[iamgine]

Expansion didn't create more bad teams than there are today.

Now that would be a nice start for discussion. But to say:

"expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams"

is just plain wrong.

[3ball]

Expansion didn't create more bad teams than there are today.




Now that would be a nice start for discussion. But to say:

"expansion has nothing to do with the number of bad teams"

is just plain wrong.


You guys parse words unnecessarily when you fully understand the point I was trying to make - you literally play dumb, so you don't have to argue substance.. sdot_thadon is the absolute king of this btw.

Anyway - expansion didn't create more bad teams than there are today - there, you happy?... And there's no need for discussion - it's a fact - the win-loss records show that there were more bad teams in 2015 than there were in the years the league expanded.. I can re-post the win-loss records if you want.
.

[iamgine]

You guys parse words unnecessarily when you fully understand the point I was trying to make - you literally play dumb, so you don't have to argue substance.. sdot_thadon is the absolute king of this btw.

Anyway - expansion didn't create more bad teams than there are today - there, you happy?... And there's no need for discussion - it's a fact - the win-loss records show that there were more bad teams in 2015 than there were in the years the league expanded.. I can re-post the win-loss records if you want.
.
I think i was just correcting you since you were saying something completely wrong.


This topic doesn't interest me much but it could be argued that if the entire league got better, then the bad teams would also be better even though they have the same bad record as the past.

[Pointguard]

The draft hurt very deep teams and that's it. Like the Warrior's losing David Lee. The argument other than that was that more teams meant the draft was weaker - I think the new team couldn't get the first two picks for the first two years.

[97 bulls]

The "diluted talent" theory has always been a weak argument. The mighty Lakers won a championship in 88 with expansion. Why didnt they win 70 games? Neither did the Pistons in 89 when the league expanded again.

If Im not mistaken, the Lakers and Pistons played the same percentage of expansion teams as the Bulls did in 96. Simply because there were less teams.

The 94 Bulls won 55 games without Jordan. You dont think they hit 70 with Jordan????Playing in a league with the same amount of teams as the Pistons and Lakers.

The 96 Bulls had a worse record vs the expansion teams than they did vs the rest of the league.

Can someone who subscribes to this theory please explain these circumstances?

[3ball]

This topic doesn't interest me much but it could be argued that if the entire league got better, then the bad teams would also be better even though they have the same bad record as the past.


flpiii, who said the entire league got better?... You?... puhleaze.. go back to realgm.. :lol ...

Today's player is worse at posting, triple-threat scoring, and any method of scoring that doesn't include live dribbling/ball-domination.. Today's player is worse at 2-point shooting in general.

But back to the point - 2015 had MORE teams with bad records than the years the league expanded.. This proves that expansion didn't lead to more bad teams than there are today...

And this is intuitive anyway - expansion created a 30-team, 450 player league, just like today (where all 450 players were existing NBA players, as pointed out in OP).. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the number of bad teams with bad records should be the same then and now (although in 2015, there were more teams with bad records, as previously mentioned).
.

[fpliii]

flpiii, who said the entire league got better?... You?... puhleaze.. go back to realgm.. :lol ...
3ball - iamgine is not me. That's not even my opinion actually. Domestic talent level stabilized around the time of the merger IMO.