Was the 90’s the most diluted era talent wise in NBA History?

[Mamba4Life]

The league went from 23 to 29 teams very fast

Most teams were lucky to have one quality star

The Jazz were considered “stacked” because Jeff Hornacek was their 2nd option :oldlol:

[LAL]

It's not MJ's fault lebron has zero skills and lost 6 finals with hand picked superteams, crushing the likes of brooklyn, hawks and bobcats in his way to the finals.

[GimmeThat]

well, there most certainly is a correlation between people who safely stayed in closet and 2nd round surprises

[Axe]

Come on. Not another clickbait thread. 🥴

[TheImmortal]

Nah, sans LeBron heatles the league has been downhill.

[HoopsNY]

It is an interesting question, but having 23 teams just increases the likelihood that each team has a more stacked roster, and that would include Chicago.

So instead of Utah having Malone-Stockton-Hornacek-Ostertag-Russell, then perhaps they have Malone-Stockton-Hornacek-Bryant Reeves-Glen Rice. Or maybe a team like New York has a team like Tim Hardaway-Starks-Mason-Oakley-Ewing.

But then maybe Chicago has Terrell Brandon-Mj-Pippen-Rodman-Alonzo Mourning? I mean, who knows really. But I don't think it's that far fetched to assume that the great teams could be even greater.

[guy]

It is an interesting question, but having 23 teams just increases the likelihood that each team has a more stacked roster, and that would include Chicago.

So instead of Utah having Malone-Stockton-Hornacek-Ostertag-Russell, then perhaps they have Malone-Stockton-Hornacek-Bryant Reeves-Glen Rice. Or maybe a team like New York has a team like Tim Hardaway-Starks-Mason-Oakley-Ewing.

But then maybe Chicago has Terrell Brandon-Mj-Pippen-Rodman-Alonzo Mourning? I mean, who knows really. But I don't think it's that far fetched to assume that the great teams could be even greater.

In the 88 draft, they would've been in a position to draft one of Rex Chapman or Rony Seikaly or either of them instead of Will Perdue and in the 89 draft, they would've been in a position to draft Glen Rice instead of Stacey King if it weren't for the expansion teams right ahead of them. Imagine those squads? Seikaly was capable of averaging a double-double and Rice was a multiple time all-star. Yes, they definitely suffered from this.

[Roundball_Rock]

Is there any other era where teams could be perennial contenders with a guy like John Starks as their second best player?


It is an interesting question, but having 23 teams just increases the likelihood that each team has a more stacked roster, and that would include Chicago.

Chicago benefited because it was able to buck the trend. They still had 2 superstars and 3 HOF players. Who else did?

[Manny98]

Yes two expansion drafts made it the weakest era in NBA history


https://youtu.be/p57WjbKSoJ0

[HoopsNY]

Is there any other era where teams could be perennial contenders with a guy like John Starks as their second best player?



Chicago benefited because it was able to buck the trend. They still had 2 superstars and 3 HOF players. Who else did?

Why do you have to turn every thread into a tear down MJ thread? lol

Anyway. It depends on how you look at it. I mean, the Pistons had Joe Dumars, Isiah Thomas, and Dennis Rodman. I know Laimbeer isn't a HOF'er, but he really should be.

The Lakers had Worthy, Magic, and Divac. All three are HOF'ers if I'm not mistaken.

Bulls beat the Cavs twice that had 3 All-Stars on the team. I mean, I get what you're saying about "superstars," but it doesn't take away from the fact that at the time, these teams possessed some of the best players in the league.

[HoopsNY]

Yes two expansion drafts made it the weakest era in NBA history


https://youtu.be/p57WjbKSoJ0

Which goes back to my original point. If there are 23 teams in the league, then each team likely gets an opportunity to stack their roster a bit more. Or are you saying that the other teams would try to stack, but somehow Chicago wouldn't?

[72-10]

no

[Mamba4Life]

no

What happens to the quality of today's game if the league expanded from 30 teams to 36?

[Roundball_Rock]

Why do you have to turn every thread into a tear down MJ thread? lol

It is because MJ stans are insecure. Who cares if the league was diluted? He was Michael Jordan. He was going to dominate no matter what.

Scoring is easier today than the 90s. Is stating that a "build up" MJ move?



I mean, the Pistons had Joe Dumars, Isiah Thomas, and Dennis Rodman

Until 1992 and Isiah wasn't Isiah anymore. Detroit was not a contender after 91'.


The Lakers had Worthy, Magic, and Divac

Similar story. Divac is a HOFer for his global achievements. He was a 1x all-star. Magic retired after 91'. So this example basically has only Worthy being around for several years in the 90s.


Bulls beat the Cavs twice that had 3 All-Stars on the team

Irrelevant. The 2015 Hawks had 4 all-stars. All-stars don't tell us anything because there will always be 12 per conference.

The dilution is evident in the quality of second and third options on contenders in the 90s versus the 80s. The obvious change was expansion. That continued until the 2010s when, due to free agency, teams once again can build stacked rosters so you can have Klay or Bosh as a #3. Klay is today's version of Reggie Miller, who was the #1 on a contender.


What happens to the quality of today's game if the league expanded from 30 teams to 36?

I'm not sure why people are contesting that. More teams=more dilution which makes the impact of a superstar even greater.

[LostCause]

No

Outside of the obvious segregated time of the league, the 70s were weaker. Literally had a whole different league competing and holding some of the most talented players. Not to mention it was peak drug abuse years

The 2000s was pretty weak as well until around 2007 or so.

[AirBonner]

No

Outside of the obvious segregated time of the league, the 70s were weaker. Literally had a whole different league competing and holding some of the most talented players. Not to mention it was peak drug abuse years

The 2000s was pretty weak as well until around 2007 or so.
Not true. Spurs, Lakers, and pistons were all championship teams multiple times. If anything it was a bloodbath :biggums:

[HoopsNY]

Until 1992 and Isiah wasn't Isiah anymore. Detroit was not a contender after 91'.

But Chicago still beat them in 1991. So was 1991 a weak championship, too? You asked for stars/HOF'ers. I gave them to you. And Chicago did that in the same season.


Similar story. Divac is a HOFer for his global achievements. He was a 1x all-star. Magic retired after 91'. So this example basically has only Worthy being around for several years in the 90s.


Divac was one of the best centers of his time. Because he played in an era with Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing doesn't negate that in a league that had 29 teams. He could score, pass, defend, and shoot. He was giving 15/10 and able to block 2 shots a game while most of the centers didn't give you that kind of production.

Magic still played on the '91 team, finished 2nd in MVP voting, and led his team to the finals. They got destroyed by Chicago. So we just invalidate the 1990-91 and claim that's just an anomaly all of a sudden now?


Irrelevant. The 2015 Hawks had 4 all-stars. All-stars don't tell us anything because there will always be 12 per conference.

I like that Divacs lack of all-star makes diqualifies him from the discussion, but in the same post you speak about the 2015 Hawks making the all-star team with 4 starters, which isn't an indication of weakness in the 2010 decade but somehow indicates weakness of the 80s and 90s I'm assuming? Or is it that it counts only when talking about Divac but not the Cavs rosters?

I like that Divacs lack of all-star makes diqualifies him from the discussion, but in the same post you speak about the 2015 Hawks making the all-star team with 4 starters, which isn't an indication of weakness in the 2010 decade but some indicates weakness of the 80s and 90s I'm assuming? Or is it that it counts only when talking about Divac but not the Cavs rosters?

If I'm not mistaken, that Cavs team had 3 all-stars in the 80s AND 90s. So if the 80s is the better era, (which I agree that it is), it still speaks volumes about Chicago being able to beat them.

[trada7029]

Is there any other era where teams could be perennial contenders with a guy like John Starks as their second best player?



Chicago benefited because it was able to buck the trend. They still had 2 superstars and 3 HOF players. Who else did?


Title teams with lowest scoring supporting casts for the overall playoffs

Post-1954 (Shot Clock Era)


10. 1994 Rockets - 68.3 PPG
9. 2006 Heat - 67.8 PPG
8. 1993 Bulls - 67.3 PPG
7. 2012 Heat - 67.0 PPG
6. 1996 Bulls - 66.7 PPG
5. 1992 Bulls - 65.9 PPG
4. 2004 Pistons - 65.6 PPG
3. 1999 Spurs - 65.2 PPG
2. 1997 Bulls - 61.5 PPG
1. 1998 Bulls - 60.8 PPG

^^° So MJ routinely won with the weakest-scoring casts ever, and only needed the #7 team defense during the 1st three-peat - every conference finals and Finals opponent had a higher-ranked defense (except the Suns' #9 defense)

[Roundball_Rock]

Divac was one of the best centers of his time.

Divac was a second year player. He was far off from his prime. His all-star selection came a full decade later.


2015 Hawks making the all-star team with 4 starters, which isn't an indication of weakness in the 2010 decade but somehow indicates weakness of the 80s and 90s I'm assuming

It is an indication that all-stars tell you zero when comparing across eras. There are always 12 all-stars per conference. If all-stars meant something that would mean the 15' Hawks were a juggernaut. They clearly weren't.


If I'm not mistaken, that Cavs team had 3 all-stars in the 80s AND 90s.

Sometimes they had 3, sometimes 2, sometimes 1. What difference does it make? Is Larry Nance the same as James Worthy or Robert Parish?


But Chicago still beat them in 1991

Magic still played on the '91 team

So your claim for the 90's being a strong era are two teams that fell apart after 1991. You don't see the problem?

[trada7029]

Divac was a second year player. He was far off from his prime. His all-star selection came a full decade later.



It is an indication that all-stars tell you zero when comparing across eras. There are always 12 all-stars per conference. If all-stars meant something that would mean the 15' Hawks were a juggernaut. They clearly weren't.



Sometimes they had 3, sometimes 2, sometimes 1. What difference does it make? Is Larry Nance the same as James Worthy or Robert Parish?




So your claim for the 90's being a strong era are two teams that fell apart after 1991. You don't see the problem?
Bulls faced better-scoring supporting casts and better defenses versus every conference finals and Finals opponent of the 1st three-peat

So ur lying about MJ's cast - MJ had less help on both sides of the ball against every conference finals and Finals opponent

(edit: the 93' suns had #9 defense compared to Bulls' #7 defense)

[Roundball_Rock]

So ur lying about MJ's cast - MJ had less help on both sides of the ball against every conference finals and Finals opponent

:roll:

[Gimmedarock]

I’ve posted this on another thread. I’m not impressed with the Bulls beating the Lakers at all. Nobody gonna a comment his Magic had no dribble moves?? I’m watching the clips last night and he’s backing guys down all the uo the court! I just assumed he had a crazy handle. He looked pretty basic to me.

I can’t watch all the clips with everything in the paint. That just doesn’t show no skill at all to be.

[Roundball_Rock]

Magic was a beast, the only player who rivaled Jordan in 91'. Unfortunately, he probably had HIV by then and his second and third options went down in the series.

When Magic retired the same team went from 58 wins to 43 and couldn't get out the first round. Player efficiencies suffered across the board without Magic there to make his teammates better.

[trada7029]

Who cares if the league was diluted?



30 teams back then = 30 teams now

So no dilution..

Haters claim the increase in teams = dilution, even though the 30-team "dilution" continues today

The league never "undiluted" back to 25 teams like MJ's first 3-peat.






Until 1992 and Isiah wasn't Isiah anymore. Detroit was not a contender after 91'.



Isiah/Dumars/Rodman were 29/27/29 when MJ beat them in 1991 (with 1 less HOF teammate and 3 less current or former all-stars).. compare to lebron, who didn't beat the Celtics or Spurs until they were in their mid-late 30's

Btw, the Pistons were favored to 3-peat heading into the 1991 season and the Bulls were still dogs





Similar story. Divac is a HOFer for his global achievements. He was a 1x all-star. Magic retired after 91'. So this example basically has only Worthy being around for several years in the 90s.



Magic was runner-up for MVP in 1991 and Worthy was all-nba (and achieved his regular season production in the Finals)

After Magic/Worthy and MJ/Pippen, the Lakers had two 17/9 forwards (Divac and Perkins), along with Green, Scott, and Campbell - so the Lakers had more talent and experience, which is why they were favored... And the stats show the Lakers' cast drastically outscored the bulls'





Irrelevant. The 2015 Hawks had 4 all-stars. All-stars don't tell us anything because there will always be 12 per conference.



The Cavs' all-stars are revered like Price, Daughtery, Nance and Harper, while the Hawks had weaker players as all-stars.. this is common knowledge

Cavs were also the #1 SRS team in the league and had the #2 defense - they had more talent and were better then any team lebron beat in his Eastern Conference career.. and MJ beat them with a near-lottery team





The dilution is evident in the quality of second and third options on contenders in the 90s versus the 80s. The obvious change was expansion. That continued until the 2010s when, due to free agency, teams once again can build stacked rosters so you can have Klay or Bosh as a #3. Klay is today's version of Reggie Miller, who was the #1 on a contender.



Recent years have seen a top-heavy league where 2 teams have Big 3"s (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) and everyone else is far worse - this leads to inflated net ratings for these top teams (against their weak comp) compared to the better league parity and resulting lower net ratings of MJ's comp





I'm not sure why people are contesting that. More teams=more dilution which makes the impact of a superstar even greater.
So today's 30 teams is more diluted than the 25-29 team-leagues that MJ won in

[Roundball_Rock]

30 teams back then = 30 teams now

The NBA went from 23 teams to 29 from 1988-1996.


even though the 30-team "dilution" continues today

The league never "undiluted" back to 25 teams like MJ's first 3-peat.


It did at the top of the league via free agency. Look at the top 3-4 guys on contenders today and compare it to that in the 90's. You have teams with 3 or 4 HOF players making the finals, just like was the case prior to the 90's. MVP caliber guys like Curry, Westbrook, Davis, Wade are/were the second best players on contenders.


Isiah/Dumars/Rodman were 29/27/29

What did Isiah do after 91'? He was retired just three years later. Dumars, Rodman kept going but Zeke was never the same.


Magic was runner-up for MVP in 1991 and Worthy was all-nba (and achieved his regular season production in the Finals)

Yeah, the problem is that was it for that team. It is pretty amusing that the two examples proffered are teams that competed only through 1991 in the 90's. That speaks for itself...


the Lakers had two 17/9 forwards (Divac and Perkins)

:lol they weren't 17/9 in 91'. Divac was 11/8, Perkins 14/7


The Cavs' all-stars are revered like Price, Daughtery, Nance and Harper

Harper was never an all-star. Nance was a three-time all-star, not exactly McHale. Price and Daughtery were elite briefly--too bad injuries ruined them prematurely.


and MJ beat them with a near-lottery team

:roll:


Recent years have seen a top-heavy league where 2 teams have Big 3"s (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) and everyone else is far worse

It is more than two teams. Houston, Lakers, Clippers, Nets, Warriors all have multiple HOF players on their rosters--all in their primes, except LeBron, who remains elite.

[trada7029]

The NBA went from 23 teams to 29 from 1988-1996.



^^^ that's less than today's 30 teams and therefore less diluted - fyi the new teams were created from players on the existing teams.




It did at the top of the league via free agency. Look at the top 3-4 guys on contenders today and compare it to that in the 90's. You have teams with 3 or 4 HOF players making the finals, just like was the case prior to the 90's. MVP caliber guys like Curry, Westbrook, Davis, Wade are/were the second best players on contenders.



Exactly - both Finals participants have "super-teams", aka 3 perennial all-stars - therefore no material talent gap

Similarly, the 90's Finals participants had 2 perennial all-stars, so the talent gap was small just like the 3-star vs 3-star format of recent years.

However, the 3-star nature of the recent Finals participants shows they had a greater talent advantage on THE LEAGUE, aka greater net ratings - that chart showing the greater net ratings of lebron's Finals comp is because the 2 Finals teams were the only ones with 3 perennial all-stars... otoh, many teams in previous eras could match the 2 perennial all-stars of the Finals participants, so the result was lower net ratings

previous eras simply had superior parity where the talent was better spread out across the league, aka numerous "Big 2's", while today's league has only 2 "Big 3's"

And no, Houston, clippers, etc didn't have 3 perennial all-stars... Only lebron's 11-17' teams and the Spurs/Warriors... :no:

[Roundball_Rock]

Exactly - both Finals participants have "super-teams", aka 3 perennial all-stars - therefore no material talent gap

Similarly, the 90's Finals participants had 2 perennial all-stars, so the talent gap was small just like the 3-star vs 3-star format of recent years.

There was a discrepancy in the 90's. Portland, Seattle, New York, Houston (94'), Orlando all made finals with only 1 HOFer. Chicago was in with 2-3 each time (technically 4 in 97' but Parish was old).

Perennial all-star is a lower standard and nebulous but Portland, New York, Houston (94') clearly had only 1. Seattle had 2 (Kemp in addition to Payton). Penny lasted so briefly it is hard to call him "perennial" but let's count him too.

How about the 2010s? The Spurs and Warriors had 4 HOF players while Miami, Cleveland, OKC had 3 each. Toronto (2) and Dallas (2) were the low end. No one is making finals with 1 HOF player in this decade.

[trada7029]

There was a discrepancy in the 90's. Portland, Seattle, New York, Houston (94'), Orlando all made finals with only 1 HOFer. Chicago was in with 2-3 each time (technically 4 in 97' but Parish was old).

Perennial all-star is a lower standard and nebulous but Portland, New York, Houston (94') clearly had only 1. Seattle had 2 (Kemp in addition to Payton). Penny lasted so briefly it is hard to call him "perennial" but let's count him too.

How about the 2010s? The Spurs and Warriors had 4 HOF players while Miami, Cleveland, OKC had 3 each. Toronto (2) and Dallas (2) were the low end. No one is making finals with 1 HOF player in this decade.
I'm not going to split hairs and correct you but I could

The league was simply top heavy (as in top-2 heavy) since lebron did the decision

Otoh, previous eras saw many more teams with sufficient casts to make the Finals, since 2 perennial all-stars was the typical standard, not 3 like today

And yes, when only 2 stars is the standard, there will be the occasional 1-star team that makes it by being incredibly balanced.. these things were possible in the more sound "pre-decision" competitive environment

Btw, 2020 saw a return to the 2-star vs 2-star format of the 90's - so mj won six 2020 rings... And several of the "Big 2's" he beat were > Kawhi/pg13, aka lebron's best comp this yr

[Roundball_Rock]

Btw, 2020 saw a return to the 2-star vs 2-star format of the 90's - so mj won six 2020 rings... And several of the "Big 2's" he beat were > Kawhi/pg13, aka lebron's best comp this yr

All stars are not the same, just like not all HOF players are.

Clippers: two MVP caliber guys plus borderline all-star types in Williams and Harrell.
Lakers: one 4x MVP, a second MVP caliber player.
Bucks: one MVP, a second perennial all-star.
Rockets: two MVPs.

These teams are not similar to 90s teams, outside of Milwaukee, who are contenders only because they have the best player.

This isn't the same as Ewing/Starks, Miller/Smits, etc.


The league was simply top heavy (as in top-2 heavy) since lebron did the decision

That accelerated the trend as it opened the Pandora's box of free agency. The role of the 08' Celtics and 04' Lakers is ignored, though. The 08' Celtics brought together 3 HOF players in their primes (1 former MVP).

[StrongLurk]

NBA 94-99 was definitely worse than 90-93. I mean, MJ being out 94 and most of 95 alone is a big difference...but things didn't get much better 96-98 and truly culminated in a bad league in 99.

[trada7029]

All stars are not the same, just like not all HOF players are.

Clippers: two MVP caliber guys plus borderline all-star types in Williams and Harrell.
Lakers: one 4x MVP, a second MVP caliber player.
Bucks: one MVP, a second perennial all-star.
Rockets: two MVPs.



Shaq/Penny were 2 mvp-type guys > Harden/Westbrick

And paul george's good showing in 2019 isn't more MVP-caliber than the best years of Worthy, KJ, Tim Hardaway, Kemp, etc

Kawhi/PG13 are lebron's best comp, yet Shaq/Penny or Magic/Worthy were better, and numerous other Big 2's were equal





That accelerated the trend as it opened the Pandora's box of free agency. The role of the 08' Celtics and 04' Lakers is ignored, though. The 08' Celtics brought together 3 HOF players in their primes (1 former MVP).




True, but those were 1-offs

2011-2017 saw either 1 or 2 teams only with 3+ perennial all-stars... About half those teams were Bron's teams, and the other half his Finals opponents, aka top heavy league/no parity

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq/Penny were 2 mvp-type guys

For only 2 years before they separated and they were too inexperienced to win when they had their shot in 95'.


Kawhi/PG13 are lebron's best comp

Who cares about LeBron? We are talking eras.


2011-2017 saw either 1 or 2 teams only with 3+ perennial all-stars... About half those teams were Bron's teams, and the other half his Finals opponents, aka top heavy league/no parity

That's what we had prior to the 90's. Teams with 3-4 HOF, sometimes even 5 in the 80's and 70's with even more in the 60's, made the finals. For instance, Kareem made 10 finals and he never faced less than 3 HOF players in the finals. The 90's and 00's were outliers.

[Axe]

NBA 94-99 was definitely worse than 90-93. I mean, MJ being out 94 and most of 95 alone is a big difference...but things didn't get much better 96-98 and truly culminated in a bad league in 99.
And the shortened season in '99 due to the lockout just made it worse.

[HoopsNY]

Divac was a second year player. He was far off from his prime. His all-star selection came a full decade later.

That might be true, but it doesn't take away from him being an impact player for LA that year. He was a starter and he was an 18/9 player averaging 2.5 blocks and shooting 57% in the finals. Should we just write that off or are you going to continue to try to minimize the efforts of everyone Chicago faced?


It is an indication that all-stars tell you zero when comparing across eras. There are always 12 all-stars per conference. If all-stars meant something that would mean the 15' Hawks were a juggernaut. They clearly weren't.

But guys like Teague and Korver weren't repeat all-stars, nor were they on anyone's list as being a threat of anything. Mark Price, Brad Daughtery, Larry Nance, and Ron Harper were legit great players. Not to mention, Price, Daughtery, and Nance all made an all-star team at least 3x. Harper was never an all-star but he sure played like one. And it's tough to make the team when you're competing against Isiah, Joe D., Jordan, Magic, Stockton, and Clyde.

What you're doing is trying to draw comparisons with those Cavs teams and the Hawks team. I think you and me both know the teams weren't the same.


Sometimes they had 3, sometimes 2, sometimes 1. What difference does it make? Is Larry Nance the same as James Worthy or Robert Parish?

Certainly not. But you brought up superstars and or HOF'ers. When I showed you examples of 3 HOF'ers on one team, you try to deflect given the fact that one of the players was young or, "AFTER" 1991 those players weren't HOF level players anymore.

Well AFTER 1996, Dennis Rodman wasn't a HOF level player either, nor did he make an all-star team in 1996, 97, or 98. Now i'll give you 1996 and maybe 1997, but 1998? In 1998, Rodman became a liability offensively and saw his playoff numbers, including rebounding, drop considerably. He clearly didn't have the presence that he once did and wasn't anywhere near it by 1998.

So 1991 doesn't count and I guess 1998 shouldn't, either.


So your claim for the 90's being a strong era are two teams that fell apart after 1991. You don't see the problem?

Well no. I just think with Jordan and Pippen both being in their prime, it didn't matter which era they played in, they were going to win.

[HoopsNY]

Recent years have seen a top-heavy league where 2 teams have Big 3"s (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) and everyone else is far worse - this leads to inflated net ratings for these top teams (against their weak comp) compared to the better league parity and resulting lower net ratings of MJ's comp

This idea of stacked teams is overrated.

Dallas beat a stacked team in Miami in 2011 with Dirk and some has beens.

Detroit beat a stacked team in LA in 2004 with 4 HOF'ers.

San Antonio beat Miami with a 37 year old Tim Duncan and a 36 year old Manu Ginobili. Tony Parker was their only all-star and Kawhi won finals MVP, but wasn't the Kawhi we know today, not even close.

Toronto beat a GS team that, despite losing KD, still had Steph-Klay-Draymond-Iggy (very similar to the 2016 Warriors team).

[Roundball_Rock]

That might be true, but it doesn't take away from him being an impact player for LA that year.

He was 11/8/1 in 91'. Valuable but not what he became in his prime.


But guys like Teague and Korver weren't repeat all-stars

No, but Horford and Millsap were.


I think you and me both know the teams weren't the same.

That's not the point. The Hawks are an example of a team having 4 all-stars simply because the conference has 12 spots and good teams tend to get extra spots.

The Hawks and Cavs both made the ECF exactly the same number of times BTW.


showed you examples of 3 HOF'ers on one team, you try to deflect given the fact that one of the players was young or, "AFTER" 1991 those players weren't HOF level players anymor

Your examples for the 90s having stacked teams are two teams that collapsed after 1991...


So 1991 doesn't count and I guess 1998 shouldn't

So you are now saying the one great team of the 90s only had 2 all-star players? How does this help your original point? :lol


I just think with Jordan and Pippen both being in their prime, it didn't matter which era they played in, they were going to win.

Irrelevant to the impact dilution had on other teams' rosters.

[Axe]

This idea of stacked teams is overrated.

Dallas beat a stacked team in Miami in 2011 with Dirk and some has beens.

Detroit beat a stacked team in LA in 2004 with 4 HOF'ers.

San Antonio beat Miami with a 37 year old Tim Duncan and a 36 year old Manu Ginobili. Tony Parker was their only all-star and Kawhi won finals MVP, but wasn't the Kawhi we know today, not even close.

Toronto beat a GS team that, despite losing KD, still had Steph-Klay-Draymond-Iggy (very similar to the 2016 Warriors team).
On the '19 warriors finals team, don't forget about boogie. He may be a shell of his former self due to disruptive injuries but can't overlook the fact that he was an all-star just two years prior. Therefore, the warriors became the first team in that decade to have five 2018 all-stars in their starting lineup.

[HoopsNY]

they weren't 17/9 in 91'. Divac was 11/8, Perkins 14/7

And how did Perkins do in the playoffs? How did Divac and Perkins do in the finals? Is there a reason you're trying to minimize their efforts and making them out to be some slouches when they clearly weren't? Perkins giving 17/9 with 55% shooting in the playoffs is somehow non-impactful? Or is Divac giving 18/9 with 2.4 blks on 57% garbage to you?


Harper was never an all-star. Nance was a three-time all-star, not exactly McHale. Price and Daughtery were elite briefly--too bad injuries ruined them prematurely.

Nice attempt at tearing down those Cavs teams. I bet the Cavs were great when they dominated the Bulls in the regular season, sweeping them. Come playoff time and they lose with one of the best defenses in the league, a stacked squad with all-stars, together with 57 wins, and they lose. So by virtue of losing to Chicago, they must be trash.

Do you get a joy out of attempting to tear down Chicago's opponents or are you just ignoring facts? You do recall that in the 1988-89 season, Cleveland was 6-0 against Chicago?

[HoopsNY]

On the '19 warriors finals team, don't forget about boogie. He may be a shell of his former self due to disruptive injuries but can't overlook the fact that he was an all-star just two years prior. Therefore, the warriors became the first team in that decade to have five 2018 all-stars in their starting lineup.

I didn't forget him, but I wanted to show how similar that team was to the 73 win team. I guess my point is, guys like Roundball like to emphasize "stacked" teams. Well a "stacked" team didn't get the Warriors anywhere last year.

It didn't get the Blazers anywhere from 1999-2001. It didn't get the Lakers anything in 2004. It didn't win the Heat 4/4 titles in the 2010s. It didn't get the Cavs in the late 80s anything, despite being the best league defense, having 3 all-stars (and Ron Harper), and beating Chicago 6-0 in the regular season in 1989.

But guys like Roundball want to minimize the league and the opponents that Mj faced. As if he didn't face:

A Lakers team that had 3 HOF'ers on it that also beat a Trailblazers team that had 3 all-stars on it that season and won. They also beat a Golden State team that had 2 HOF'ers/2 all-stars, and Mitch Richmond who is arguably a HOF'er.

A Pistons team that had 3 HOF'ers on it (and Laimbeer should be in the HOF) and got swept.

A Utah Jazz team that beat a Rockets team with 3 all-stars, then lost to Chicago in the finals.

A Utah Jazz team that beat a Lakers team with 4 all-stars (swept 'em), but lost in the NBA finals, again, to the same team.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nice attempt at tearing down those Cavs teams.

You must be new to watching sports. In every era there are good teams that look better on paper than on the court. The Cavs were one of those teams.


Come playoff time and they lose with one of the best defenses in the league, a stacked squad with all-stars, together with 57 wins, and they lose

Yeah! Awesome--and they lost in the first round.

Here is what the Cavs did during that run: 57 wins, 42, 33, 57, 54, 47.
Playoffs: lost first round, lost first round, missed playoffs, ECF, swept in ECSF, swept in the first round.

Not exactly the 80's Celtics.


You do recall that in the 1988-89 season, Cleveland was 6-0 against Chicago?

Do you recall Chicago was 3-0 against Miami in 2010-2011? Let me guess: you love MJ but aren't a Bulls fan?

[trada7029]

That's what we had prior to the 90's. Teams with 3-4 HOF, sometimes even 5 in the 80's and 70's with even more in the 60's, made the finals. For instance, Kareem made 10 finals and he never faced less than 3 HOF players in the finals. The 90's and 00's were outliers.



Right but there were only 23 teams compared to today's 30, so a greater proportion of teams were good

And the 2-stacked team format means that 1 of the stacked teams can't complain about "comp"


The only thing that matters are the times great talent deficits were overcome, aka 11' Finals or 89' first round

[Axe]

I didn't forget him, but I wanted to show how similar that team was to the 73 win team. I guess my point is, guys like Roundball like to emphasize "stacked" teams. Well a "stacked" team didn't get the Warriors anywhere last year.

It didn't get the Blazers anywhere from 1999-2001. It didn't get the Lakers anything in 2004. It didn't win the Heat 4/4 titles in the 2010s. It didn't get the Cavs in the late 80s anything, despite being the best league defense, having 3 all-stars (and Ron Harper), and beating Chicago 6-0 in the regular season in 1989.

But guys like Roundball want to minimize the league and the opponents that Mj faced. As if he didn't face:

A Lakers team that had 3 HOF'ers on it that also beat a Trailblazers team that had 3 all-stars on it that season and won. They also beat a Golden State team that had 2 HOF'ers/2 all-stars, and Mitch Richmond who is arguably a HOF'er.

A Pistons team that had 3 HOF'ers on it (and Laimbeer should be in the HOF) and got swept.

A Utah Jazz team that beat a Rockets team with 3 all-stars, then lost to Chicago in the finals.

A Utah Jazz team that beat a Lakers team with 4 all-stars (swept 'em), but lost in the NBA finals, again, to the same team.
Which all brings up to the title of this futile thread. 🥴

[HoopsNY]

He was 11/8/1 in 91'. Valuable but not what he became in his prime.

Nice overlooking Divac's contribution to the 1990-91 team. I guess his playoff numbers improving on the regular season was non-impactful, and his 18/9 with 2.4 blks on 57% shooting was meaningless as well.


No, but Horford and Millsap were.

Right, now tell me that that Hawks team was better than that Cavs team. If you truly think so, then fair, but I would disagree.


Your examples for the 90s having stacked teams are two teams that collapsed after 1991...

So what happens when the "non-stacked" teams beat the stacked teams?


So you are now saying the one great team of the 90s only had 2 all-star players? How does this help your original point?

Because you're using loaded terms like, "HOF'ers." As if Dennis in 1998 is meaningful but Vlade in 1991 isn't, yet both are HOF'ers. You use arbitrary terms and definitions but ignore the broader spectrum. Nice try, though.


Irrelevant to the impact dilution had on other teams' rosters.

Because if the league remains with 23 teams, Chicago wouldn't get a chance to add an additional all-star or have additional quality role players. For some reason, all the other teams could have, but Chicago is the exception. Right. Makes sense.

[Roundball_Rock]

Numbers go up when the leading scorer and the #2 in FGA get hurt.


Right, now tell me that that Hawks team was better than that Cavs team

You missed the point.


As if Dennis in 1998 is meaningful but Vlade in 1991 isn't, yet both are HOF'ers

:oldlol: at comparing Rodman, a NBA legend, to Divac who got in because of what he did overseas.


Because if the league remains with 23 teams, Chicago wouldn't get a chance to add an additional all-star or have additional quality role player

Chicago is the one who had the advantage--23 teams would reduce the impact of superstars and blunt their main advantages of having the best player and a second superstar.

[FreezingTsmoove]

This era would probably be the same way if everyone didnt want to team up with each other...

[trada7029]

:oldlol: at comparing Rodman, a NBA legend, to Divac who got in because of what he did overseas.



Rodman.. 1997 Playoffs... 4/8
Rodman.. 1998 Finals....... 4/8.... Not the starter
V. Divac... 1991 Finals....... 17/9
S. Perkins 1991 Finals....... 17/8



.

[AirBonner]

Rodman.. 1997 Playoffs... 4/8
Rodman.. 1998 Finals....... 4/8.... Not the starter
V. Divac... 1991 Finals....... 17/9
S. Perkins 1991 Finals....... 17/8



.
Rodman was robbed of the FMVP

[Roundball_Rock]

R Horry 18/10
M Elie 16/4
A Croshere 15/6

Fun with small sample sizes.

[guy]

Magic was a beast, the only player who rivaled Jordan in 91'. Unfortunately, he probably had HIV by then and his second and third options went down in the series.

When Magic retired the same team went from 58 wins to 43 and couldn't get out the first round. Player efficiencies suffered across the board without Magic there to make his teammates better.

This dude blocked me but I just want to point out how ridiculous the bolded is. Any intelligent and informed person would know that this shit would not matter. HIV does not work like that. People are really reaching to discredit the guy. :oldlol:

[HoopsNY]

There was a discrepancy in the 90's. Portland, Seattle, New York, Houston (94'), Orlando all made finals with only 1 HOFer. Chicago was in with 2-3 each time (technically 4 in 97' but Parish was old).

Perennial all-star is a lower standard and nebulous but Portland, New York, Houston (94') clearly had only 1. Seattle had 2 (Kemp in addition to Payton). Penny lasted so briefly it is hard to call him "perennial" but let's count him too.

How about the 2010s? The Spurs and Warriors had 4 HOF players while Miami, Cleveland, OKC had 3 each. Toronto (2) and Dallas (2) were the low end. No one is making finals with 1 HOF player in this decade.

Stop acting like having HOF players automatically renders them impactful or makes their performances equal to their prime years. Tim Duncan at 37 was not Tim Duncan at 25. Manu Ginobili in 2014 was not Manu Ginobili in 2007, and he was 36.

The Spurs had 1 all-star that year, Tony Parker. The Mavs had Dirk Nowitzki the year they won. Don't act like Kidd and Marion were anywhere near the level of players they were in 2005. So stop with this "HOF'er" argument as if it strengthens what you're saying. What matters is how good were the players at the time or during that entire season they played.

Toronto had Kawhi as a lock HOF'er and Cleveland in 2018 had LeBron. So teams are making it with just 1 HOF'er. And so what? The Lakers had 3 in 1991 and the Jazz had 2 in '96-'98. That didn't change the outcome. Detroit had 3 HOF'ers in the ECF against Chicago to their 2.

Did the Nets have multiple HOF'ers the years they made it to the finals? How about the Mavs in 2006? How about the Pistons in both the years they won and lost in the finals? How about Orlando the year they lost to LA?

The Rockets in 1993-94 won it one HOF'er, and their opponent had one HOF'er. There are so many examples that prove or disprove your point, all while not taking into factor any context.

[HoopsNY]

You must be new to watching sports. In every era there are good teams that look better on paper than on the court. The Cavs were one of those teams.

I'm not new at all, but nice dig at me. You're ignoring something - they went 6-0 against Chicago in the regular season. Stop trying to minimize their as worthy opponents. It can't be all or nothing. If Jordan isn't in the league, that team is making the NBA finals at least one of those years. They were a great team.


Yeah! Awesome--and they lost in the first round.

Yea and look who they ran into. A guy averaging 40 points and 8 assists on 52% shooting with 3 steals a game in that series. I mean, was it that they were garbage or was it that Mike was just THAT good?


Do you recall Chicago was 3-0 against Miami in 2010-2011? Let me guess: you love MJ but aren't a Bulls fan?

Even more proof. Are you going to tell me that that Bulls team in 2010-11 was a bad team, or was it that they just ran into a GOAT level player in LeBron in the playoffs. That team won 60 games and had the MVP. Just because Miami beat them doesn't mean that they were a bad team. They were a great team. They just happened to face a GOAT level player in the midst of his prime in the playoffs.

It's like you don't want to admit that. And if you did so, it would raise Jordan's level in your eyes and you just don't want to do that. Give credit where credit is due.

[HoopsNY]

at comparing Rodman, a NBA legend, to Divac who got in because of what he did overseas.

I'm not sure why you're laughing. You're laughing at comparing one guy who was 22 years old, a full time starter, in the best shape and health (mentally and physically) of his life, who put up 18/9 with 2.4 blks on 57% shooting in the finals.

But I'm the one being silly for thinking a 36 year old player who was on his last lap and ultimately declined his last season with Chicago, giving 3 pts with 8 rebounds and 1 assist in the NBA finals is somehow NOT an accurate reflection of his Hall of Fame career?

Give me a break man. You're letting your hatred blind you.

[Roundball_Rock]

You're ignoring something - they went 6-0 against Chicago in the regular season

The point is regular season match ups often are useless predictors of playoff performance. If you were a Bulls fan you would have learned this lesson in 2011.


If Jordan isn't in the league, that team is making the NBA finals at least one of those years. They were a great team.

You can play that game in any era. Using that logic, the 17' and 18' Celtics were a great team since if LeBron didn't exist they would have made not 1 but 2 finals.

The Cavs underachieved with Price/Daughtery. They made 1 ECF. In their second best season they got swept in the second round. There is no way to spin that as anything else than underachieving (especially given how stacked you say they were).


Yea and look who they ran into. A guy averaging 40 points and 8 assists on 52% shooting with 3 steals a game in that series. I mean, was it that they were garbage or was it that Mike was just THAT good?

They lost in the first round the next year too, with SG Hersey Hawkins averaging 27 (Barkley had 26). Jordan doesn't explain their underachieving.


Are you going to tell me that that Bulls team in 2010-11 was a bad team, or was it that they just ran into a GOAT level player in LeBron in the playoffs

We'll never know what that team could do but looking strictly at 2011, they were a good team that wasn't the best (they were in 2012 IMO). There are always those kind of teams. When you have 30 teams there will be several good teams.


They were a great team

You have a loose definition of a great team. A great team is the 90's Bulls, 80's Pistons, 80's Lakers, 10's Warriors, 60's Celtics, 80's Celtics, 72' Lakers, 67' Sixers, etc. Not the 2011 Bulls or 1989 Cavs. Those teams exist every year.

[RogueBorg]

The 1990's was the golden era of the NBA center. It had the greatest collection of centers that could play defense, rebound, block shots, and score (except Mutombo) at any other time in NBA history.

Shaq
Olajuwon
Robinson
Ewing
Mourning
Mutombo

I thought the center was extinct, but guys like Joel Embiid and KAT are starting to come back having evolved with a 3-point shot.

[HoopsNY]

The point is regular season match ups often are useless predictors of playoff performance. If you were a Bulls fan you would have learned this lesson in 2011.



You can play that game in any era. Using that logic, the 17' and 18' Celtics were a great team since if LeBron didn't exist they would have made not 1 but 2 finals.

The Cavs underachieved with Price/Daughtery. They made 1 ECF. In their second best season they got swept in the second round. There is no way to spin that as anything else than underachieving (especially given how stacked you say they were).



They lost in the first round the next year too, with SG Hersey Hawkins averaging 27 (Barkley had 26). Jordan doesn't explain their underachieving.



We'll never know what that team could do but looking strictly at 2011, they were a good team that wasn't the best (they were in 2012 IMO). There are always those kind of teams. When you have 30 teams there will be several good teams.



You have a loose definition of a great team. A great team is the 90's Bulls, 80's Pistons, 80's Lakers, 10's Warriors, 60's Celtics, 80's Celtics, 72' Lakers, 67' Sixers, etc. Not the 2011 Bulls or 1989 Cavs. Those teams exist every year.

No, you're describing elite teams. Those teams you mentioned are dynasties. You can be a great team and not win a chip.

[Roundball_Rock]

No, you're describing elite teams. Those teams you mentioned are dynasties. You can be a great team and not win a chip.

So we are talking different definitions for the same terms. What you describe for the 11' Bulls applies to the 92' Cavs. What I would note is 90% of ISH wouldn't describe those type of teams as great teams. You also don't need to be a dynasty to be great. 67' Sixers, 71' Bucks, 72' Lakers are all all-time great teams but only won once.