Article from 1996 talking about how weak and diluted the NBA has become

[1987_Lakers]

Found the article on realgm.

"This league is so filtered and watered down, we can beat anybody with our eyes closed, pretty much," Rodman said.

"You look at the overall picture, it is diluted to some extent," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, whose team is in Los Angeles preparing to meet the Lakers on Friday night. "You can get by with three great players on a team, and have a chance to win it all. Before, you had to have four or five great players, and some good players around them."

"The talent level now nowhere compares to what it was eight years ago, and obviously it's because of expansion," said Jazz broadcaster Ron Boone.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/1/5/19217469/nba-rosters-diluted-thanks-to-expansion

[ArbitraryWater]

Lmao

From the horse's mouth

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The late 90s were definitely washed. Well, if you're comparing them to the early 90s and late 80s.

[Kblaze8855]

Well obviously if you remove Minnesota, Orlando, Toronto, Miami, Grizzlies, and the Hornets in 1996 you distribute what....8-9 stars to the other teams and 30+ starters to make every team deeper too. That isn’t debatable. That’s an inevitable part of any time of expansion. You gradually make it up as the talent base expands but any league with less teams and similar talent will have better teams.

[Kblaze8855]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

[HoopsNY]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

Which is never factored into the conversation. It's as if teams like Chicago somehow wouldn't have access to any players had there not been an additional 6 teams. But surprisingly, 22 other teams get dibs on all the draft picks, all the top 6th men, all the all-stars, and all of the future HOF'ers. It's an odd double standard that almost never gets spoken of.

[RogueBorg]

It's relative, meaning watered down for one watered down for all. Why wasn't any other team approaching 70-wins? Why wasn't any other team doing what the Bulls were doing? It wasn't just watered down for Chicago to enjoy.

[LAmbruh]

Ouch :roll:


Kiddie Park 3pt line it is :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

[Kblaze8855]

The best teams today approach pre expansion talent by players just deciding to do it. You could give the league 50 teams. If 3-4 stars wanna play together they can still do it.

[Akeem34TheDream]

When contenders get deeper, performances of first option players become less crucial. And the best player in the league is less likely to win a title. There was no injustice in that era but there can be if you compare eras and rings.

[Akeem34TheDream]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

Talent pool gets bigger day by day. If we see 10 new teams next year, then yes teams will get weaker for a while until talent pool balances it again.

[Roundball_Rock]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

Exactly. I am surprised people don't get it. The rosters speak for themselves. Just look at a 90's contender and compare it to contenders from the 80's or before that. The 00's were more like the 90's than the 10's.

Only free agency has allowed teams to built the type of contenders that existed prior to the NBA expanding in the late 80's/90's. You have/had teams with Curry, Wade, Westbrook, George, Davis as the #2 option and it is no big deal today. Third options like Klay Thompson who would be the #1 option on 90's Indiana or the mid-2000's Pistons.


Why wasn't any other team approaching 70-wins? Why wasn't any other team doing what the Bulls were doing? It wasn't just watered down for Chicago to enjoy.

The Bulls were the only team with 2 superstars along with Orlando for a minute. They then added a third HOF player. They were an outlier who bucked the trend.

[1987_Lakers]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.

[Roundball_Rock]

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.

If you wear a headband you had to get one ASG like Gatling and Cliff Robinson got. :oldlol:

A prime example of win inflation is Utah, the other team with two consistent HOF players (although Stockton was never a MVP candidate). Stockton became a stater in 88' (his fourth season) so let's start there, although his first all-star season was 89'.

Utah wins from 1988-2000: 47, 51, 55, 54, 55, 47, 53, 60, 55, 64, 62, 61*, 55.

Utah couldn't clear 55 with both Malone, Stockton in their 20's but then started winning 60+ when Malone, Stockton were 31 and 32. Even in 2001 with Malone 37 and Stockton 38 they won 53.

*Prorated over 82 games.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Jordans prime years were played in the weakest era in NBA history

Lebrons prime was/is played in the toughest Era

Its a shame we never got to see MJ play in a real era, outside of him going winless in the late 80s

[Norcaliblunt]

Right now the best thing would be to get rid of most the teams and get rid of the schedule. Just form 5 to 6 super teams and have different ones square off against each other on PPV every month.

[Bronbron23]

Found the article on realgm.

"This league is so filtered and watered down, we can beat anybody with our eyes closed, pretty much," Rodman said.

"You look at the overall picture, it is diluted to some extent," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, whose team is in Los Angeles preparing to meet the Lakers on Friday night. "You can get by with three great players on a team, and have a chance to win it all. Before, you had to have four or five great players, and some good players around them."

"The talent level now nowhere compares to what it was eight years ago, and obviously it's because of expansion," said Jazz broadcaster Ron Boone.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/1/5/19217469/nba-rosters-diluted-thanks-to-expansion

Rod is comparing it to the 80's with teams like lakers and Celtics that were loaded qnd had 3 or more great players. Where are the teams now that have 3 great players? Theres none in the east. Theres barely any teams with just 2 great players. West has a couple teams with 2 great players but lebron has the best second player out of any of them.

The 96 magic team would crush every team in the league other than maybe brons lakers and mj's bulls swept them.

[Kblaze8855]

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.



like 4 of those guys would be better today....

[3ball]

Found the article on realgm.

"This league is so filtered and watered down, we can beat anybody with our eyes closed, pretty much," Rodman said.

"You look at the overall picture, it is diluted to some extent," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, whose team is in Los Angeles preparing to meet the Lakers on Friday night. "You can get by with three great players on a team, and have a chance to win it all. Before, you had to have four or five great players, and some good players around them."

"The talent level now nowhere compares to what it was eight years ago, and obviously it's because of expansion," said Jazz broadcaster Ron Boone.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/1/5/19217469/nba-rosters-diluted-thanks-to-expansion

A lower talent standard to make the Finals (aka only 2-3 good players like the 90's) means that more teams are closer to Finals-caliber and it's a very competitive environment - the talent is more evenly spread out and that's optimal (90's basketball)

Otoh, the 80's had 2 teams per year with 4-5 great players, so those teams crushed everyone else and had inflated net ratings... top heavy league = higher net ratings... and suboptmal competitive environment (less teams have a chance)

Sloan should stick to coaching and away from analyzing the competitive environment

[jstern]

I've always said that, but it's even more true in the last 20 years. Expansion just doesn't dilute the talent the year it happens, because the extra teams don't just leave after a couple of years. The league just has too many teams. We're talking about 23 teams in the 80s to 30 teams now, and I think 27 in the 90s. If we eliminated 7 teams, an eliminated the 84 worse players in the league, then the East probably wouldn't have been the weakest conference in Sports history in the last 20 years. At least in the 90s both leagues were more or less equal.

People are used to it now, so they don't have the perspective of the guys from the 80s, fans of the 80s commenting in the 90s, so they don't realize just how weak it is now.

[RogueBorg]

Jordans prime years were played in the weakest era in NBA history

Lebrons prime was/is played in the toughest Era



Toughest? :roll: The greatest era of basketball was 1983-1996. It had the top 3 rivalries of all-time and three dynasties. It was the Golden Era of the NBA center. Arguably the 5 best teams of all-time ('83 Sixers, '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons, '96 Bulls), the greatest collection of talent ever lead by three of the greatest players in league history, Magic, Larry, and MJ.

[Mamba4Life]

Damn! Jordan stans get wrecked!!

[HoopsNY]

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.

Vin Baker was no slouch, neither was Terrell Brandon. Gugliotta was a 21 and 9 player and was no scrub himself. Keep in mind, Gatling and Schrempf were only on the team because Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler were hurt.

And Gatling was a 19/8 player who shot 52% in an era that averaged about 14 ppg less than teams average today. Every year, you typically have some players who shouldn't be there. Al Horford, Kyle Lowry, Goran Dragic, Khris Middleton in recent years. It happens.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chris Gatling being compared to perennial all-stars. The lengths they will go to hype the 90's. :lol

Zach Lavine is a 26/5/4 player. Stats are misleading, especially on trash teams.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Vin Baker was no slouch, neither was Terrell Brandon. Gugliotta was a 21 and 9 player and was no scrub himself. Keep in mind, Gatling and Schrempf were only on the team because Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler were hurt.

And Gatling was a 19/8 player who shot 52% in an era that averaged about 14 ppg less than teams average today. Every year, you typically have some players who shouldn't be there. Al Horford, Kyle Lowry, Goran Dragic, Khris Middleton in recent years. It happens.

Yeah "weird" all-star selections happen all the time.

Why is there confusion?

And Goran Dragic? :oldlol: Guess that's what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

[HoopsNY]

Chris Gatling being compared to perennial all-stars. The lengths they will go to hype the 90's. :lol

Zach Lavine is a 26/5/4 player. Stats are misleading, especially on trash teams.

I'm not comparing Chris Gatling to perennial all-stars. I'm saying these kinds of selections happen all the time. And many of them happen as a result of player injuries. But for that specific year, Gatling certainly wasn't a bad player. 19 points and 8 rebounds, shooting 52% is "bad" in an era that lacked scoring?

[Roundball_Rock]

Al Horford, Kyle Lowry, Goran Dragic, Khris Middleton in recent years. It happens.

Horford 5x all-star
Lowry 6x all-star
Middleton 2x all-star (2 straight, likely will finish with 4-5)

[HoopsNY]

Gatling's Per 100 Numbers in 1996-97: 37.3 ppg 15.5 Rebs on 52.5% shooting

B. Adebayo 2019-20: 23.5/15.0 on 57%
D. Sabonis 2019-20: 25.9/17.4 on 54%
N. Vucevic 2018-19: 32.5/18.7 on 51%
D. Green 2017-18: 16.3/11.3 on 45%
A. Horford 2017-18: 20.3/11.6 on 49%

[HoopsNY]

Horford 5x all-star
Lowry 6x all-star
Middleton 2x all-star (2 straight, likely will finish with 4-5)

Who cares? It doesn't mean every year they made it, that they deserved to make it or had prototypical "all-star" years. Horford made the AS game averaging 12 ppg. Lowry 14 ppg. Let's stop getting carried away with other years as if that defines that specific year for that player.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah "weird" all-star selections happen all the time.

Why is there confusion?

And Goran Dragic? :oldlol: Guess that's what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Yea well, like I said, it happens, for whatever that may be. Bj Armstrong made the all-star team in 1994. Did he deserve it? No. He just happened to get voted on and Reggie Miller got left off.

[LostCause]

Kyle Korver made the All-Star team in 2015 btw

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kyle Korver made the All-Star team in 2015 btw

Shit... :oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

You do realize Gatling played on a 24-58 team that ranked #28 on offense right? He came off the bench that year and didn't even win 6MOY.

[RRR3]

Who cares? It doesn't mean every year they made it, that they deserved to make it or had prototypical "all-star" years. Horford made the AS game averaging 12 ppg. Lowry 14 ppg. Let's stop getting carried away with other years as if that defines that specific year for that player.
I mean Lowry is gonna make the HOF and you'll look pretty stupid talking about him the way you are in this thread when that happens.


Horford is legit too, or at least he was.

[Roundball_Rock]

You do realize Gatling played on a 24-58 team that ranked #28 on offense right? He came off the bench that year and didn't even win 6MOY.

While Horford averaged "12" (rounding 12.9 down :oldlol: ) along with 7 boards and 5 assists on the #1 seed.


I mean Lowry is gonna make the HOF and you'll look pretty stupid talking about him the way you are in this thread when that happens.

Horford is legit too, or at least he was.

Yeah these guys are recognized as good players in their eras. Great? No, but perennial all-stars don't grow on trees.

[RRR3]

While Horford averaged "12" (rounding 12.9 down :oldlol: ) on the #1 seed.
Horford BPM that year: 4.4
Gatling BPM that year: 0.8



But but muh PPGZ!

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah "weird" all-star selections happen all the time.

Why is there confusion?

And Goran Dragic? :oldlol: Guess that's what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

I agree, but not as drastic as it was in '97, in '97 you had 6 players make the team who were only 3x All-Stars or less in their careers and that doesn't include guys like Vin Baker or Latrell Sprewell who didn't make All-star games consistently throughout their careers. You can't name me one year with such unimpressive names.

[HoopsNY]

When did I say Gatling was > than any of those guys? My point is that you have questionable players who make the team, who may have no deserved to make it that particular year. It happens. I'm not taking aim at Lowry's entire career, nor am I Horford's. 12.9, 13, 12 ppg, whatever you want to call it.

Gatling averaging 19 ppg coming off the bench on a high fg% is impressive any way you look at it. Not to mention, he added 8 rebounds in just 27 minutes. And Gatling wasn't even supposed to play! He replaced Charles Barkley who was injured. So stop hatin!

[RRR3]

Horford didn't make it for his scoring. This is like saying Dikembe Mutombo and Ben Wallace were weak allstars.

[HoopsNY]

I agree, but not as drastic as it was in '97, in '97 you had 6 players make the team who were only 3x All-Stars or less in their careers and that doesn't include guys like Vin Baker or Latrell Sprewell who didn't make All-star games consistently throughout their careers. You can't name me one year with such unimpressive names.

2009 had guys like David West, Devin Harris, Rashard Lewis, and Mo Williams.

2013 had guys like Zach Randolph, Luol Deng, Brook Lopez, and Jrue Holiday.

It happens.

[HoopsNY]

Horford didn't make it for his scoring. This is like saying Dikembe Mutombo and Ben Wallace were weak allstars.

Right, because Al Horford is anywhere near the defensive rank of Mutombo and Ben Wallace, two of the greatest defensive players and rebounders, ever.

[RRR3]

Right, because Al Horford is anywhere near the defensive rank of Mutombo and Ben Wallace, two of the greatest defensive players and rebounders, ever.
I didn't say that, but he made the ASG for the same reason they did. It's not unheard of. Players like DeAndre Jordan and Rudy Gobert are further examples. And Horford is definitely more valuable than any of them on offense.

[HoopsNY]

I didn't say that, but he made the ASG for the same reason they did. It's not unheard of. Players like DeAndre Jordan and Rudy Gobert are further examples. And Horford is definitely more valuable than any of them on offense.

That's one way of looking at it. Look, the bottomline is, these tear down posts do nothing to analyze anything. Talking about Chris Gatling being an all-star in 1997 while ignoring:

1) He was replacing an injured Charles Barkley
2) He averaged 19 ppg and 8 rebs, shooting 52% off the bench (37 ppg-15.5 rebs per 100 possessions)

is a faulty way of looking at anything. In any era, on any team, a player (any player), averaging 19/8 off the bench would be praised. I don't see the sense in trying to tear that player's accomplishment down, especially when his all-star selection was because he was replacing a HOF player.

[sportjames23]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/033/745/michael.jpg

[1987_Lakers]

https://i.postimg.cc/HkTXCqvB/Sport-James-Owned.png

[GimmeThat]

besides the obvious sentiments that if the statements were true, then NCAA championships would be the most predictable tournament of all time. yet, hadn't seen any one of them getting it right 100%.

or the intellectual standpoint in which, if the NBA isn't producing any doctors, then the whole weak/strong era argument is nullified, since they're just being carried onto the court for 48 min of game time stretched out into near 2 hours of 'entertainment'

truth be told, there really are only 2 types of voices allowed on air. and so far, the following/follower set up has seen to triumph over the like option.

in short, all you see is Sloan/Rodman going "how the hell are these people just getting paid compared to what I make and had been making"

[Lebron23]

It's only nostalgia that made the mid to late 1990's look better compared to the current era.

[Manny98]

90s was the weakest era ever, we all know this but these delusional Jordan stans won't accept it

[86Celtics]

90s was the weakest era ever, we all know this but these delusional Jordan stans won't accept it

Who is we? You and a bunch of adolescents?

[Manny98]

Who is we? You and a bunch of adolescents?

Everyone with high basketball knowledge and isn't biased

[86Celtics]

But you're biased. And as far as your intellect goes, I'll let others be the judge of that.

[brutalBBQ]

its like saying Rafael Nadal is better than Rodger Federer
Bob Burquist over Tony Hawk, its a controversial opinion but GOAT

[Manny98]

But you're biased. And as far as your intellect goes, I'll let others be the judge of that.
Are Ron Boone, Rodman and everyone else that's said the 90s era is weak af biased as well :oldlol:

It's not even an opinion it's a fact that the 90s was watered down due to multiple expansion drafts

[PP34Deuce]

96 was a transition period. small market teams slowly began getting talent toward the end of the 3 peat. Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Kobe, Ray Allen, Marbury, Dirk, Nash, Pierce, Vince Carter, Tmac were slowly coming and bringing excitement and competitiveness.

[PP34Deuce]

lol great comparison. I've always seen Bob as the GOAT all around guy while Tony is GOAT vert and just has a gravity that made him explode.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not sure why people can't see the dilution. The rosters are obvious. How good would a team be with Reggie Miller as their best player today or in the 80's? Put it another way, how good would a team today be with Klay Thompson as their #1?

[LostCause]

The league was obviously watered down. Don’t think I anyone disagrees with that. However people tying that into Jordan are forgetting that if that didn’t occur, MJs own teams would be stronger. So his legacy would very likely remain the same

That said, the 90s isn’t usually thought of as just the decade as a whole. There were pretty big differences in the NBA post-95/96 and pre-94. The “Golden Age” of the NBA usually refers to the mid/late 80s to early 90s. Late 90s were bad comparatively. The early 2000s were much worse than the late 90s. However the 70s are generally referred to as the weakest era overall due to a multitude of different reasons. Skill, Drugs, Expansion etc. This is before most players could play basketball and make a living so a lot of them held part-time jobs or other careers alongside basketball. The cocaine epidemic was at it's worst in the NBA during this period, and the league expanded with twice as many times during this period (67-80) than it did during the 90s (7 from 81-Today, 14 from 67-80). That includes 4 ABA teams in 76.

This list goes into more detail on it (2010s not included as it was made in 2012 but he does state it's shaping up to be one of the best)
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1305229-nba-ranking-every-decade-in-nba-history

[HoopsNY]

Not sure why people can't see the dilution. The rosters are obvious. How good would a team be with Reggie Miller as their best player today or in the 80's? Put it another way, how good would a team today be with Klay Thompson as their #1?

Pascal Siakam is the Raptors' best player and they have a .719 win %. If you surround Miller with the Raptors' supporting cast, why wouldn't they do similar? Miller's PPG Per 100 in 1996-97 was 31.8. Siakam's is the same in 2019-20, with a much higher league pace and league ppg average.

[sportjames23]

https://i.postimg.cc/HkTXCqvB/Sport-James-Owned.png

I still have this kid on a leash. :oldlol: