Why the 90s was a Weaker Era

[HoopsNY]

One thing that I've noticed a lot of people often do is analyze the game from a context that fits their narrative, and often times using metrics and measurements that align with the current state of the game.

It's important to apply these standards across all eras while considering the context that fits appropriately, and applying such contexts equally.

For example, we saw a recent post about what the championship Bulls teams would do in the 80s. Some posters were quick to say they would win few or no titles at all. I understand that logic, but it is predicated on the notion of the stacked (super)teams that existed in the 80s (Pistons, Celtics, Sixers, Lakers).

What posters failed to realize is that expansion diluted talent across all teams. If you're going to match up those teams, who immediately dealt with diluted talent, then you must add an additional star/super-star/sixth man/role player to the Bulls' roster as well.

Having said all that, I do believe the 90s had weaker talent, but not because the talent didn't exist, but because injuries or unfortunate circumstances occurred that limited longevity, peak play, or a prime "decline" (if you will).

For example: Bird was not the same player after '88. He had woeful injuries and was never the same player, though he played at an all-star level (24/9/7/2 on 48%). So what do those later years, particularly from 1990-92, look like without such injuries? Maybe 25/10/7 on 50%? It's safe to say if Bird doesn't succumb to such injuries, then his career probably goes 'til 1994, or even 1995.

That gives him four years where he's putting up elite numbers, on a competitive team, to be able to win another championship.

Bird as an injured player was still able to produce at a high level, so what's stopping him on full strength? What solidifies this argument even more is what happened to his co-star, Reggie Lewis. Lewis died tragically, but was an all-star level SG, a solid defender, and together with Bird, could have been an interesting force in the Eastern Conference.

Another example is Drazen Petrovic. His untimely death was tragic, and the Nets had something promising going. The following season after Drazen's death, Jersey won 45 games. What does the future of Jersey look like with Drazen-Coleman-Anderson with Drazen coming into his peak years?

The league black-balled a player like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf after his controversy concerning standing for the national anthem. After all, he was Steph before Steph.

Guys like Kevin Johnson, Charles Barkley, Larry Johnson, and Penny Hardaway saw their careers greatly impacted due to injury. Each of these guys never recovered from those injuries, the best being Barkley, who simply wasn't the same player after the 1995 season.

The Bulls of course were no foreigners to this. Pippen was not the same player after the 1996 season. He was injured in the playoffs and he never quite hit those peak years. By the ECF and finals in 1998, his back was shot.

Even Magic Johnson is a prime example of this. Magic led his team to the finals in '91, putting up 19/13/7 on 48% that year. Magic retired at 31. There's no reason to think that Magic couldn't go another 4-5 years, especially seeing that he returned to the league in 1996, four years after his first retirement.

Patrick Ewing had an awful wrist injury during the 1997-98 season. Brad Daugherty retired at the age of 30 in 1996. But Daugherty's last game was at the age of 28.

Shawn Kemp had unfortunate struggles with cocaine. Vin Baker had an alcohol addiction. And Grant Hill was done after the 2000 season (though they don't count since their demise precedes the Bulls championship years).

There are more names that I'm forgetting, but yes, the 90s had weaker talent. Do all these guys being healthy necessarily change the eventual outcome of the NBA finals? Probably not. But the claim still does have some merit.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

[AussieSteve]

The 2nd half of the 90s were week. Particularly 97-99.

Karl Malone is the barometer of this fact. Couldn't sniff am MVP in in 20s or early 30s. Then proceeds to win 2 in his mid 30s.

I'm tired so can't be bothered elaborating right now, but expansion and injuries made those three years the weakest in NBA history. Looking at MVP vote getters for those seasons tells the story to some extent.

[Phoenix]

First half of the 90s was decent with the dream team era stars all in their peaks/primes( except Magic and Bird) and alot of teams still featured good firepower. The real 'weak period' was after 95 when the biggest names were on the wrong side of 30, the league was transitioning to new stars( Shaq, Kobe, Garnett, Iverson, Hill, Penny etc etc) and the two Canadian franchises further diluting the talent across teams.

But as said it affected everyone across the board and yes, if you just dropped the 90s Bulls into 1980 they are going to likely have a better roster top to bottom as the decade progressed.

[3ba11]

Parity = tougher era

And the 90's had the most parity of any decade because there were no super-teams - with the talent was spread around evenly, only 2 stars were needed to be a Finals-caliber team, so there were MANY Finals-caliber teams..

A league with many Finals-caliber teams is tougher than a league with 2 Finals-caliber teams that get a free pass to the Finals every year.

[1987_Lakers]

Parity = tougher era

And the 90's had the most parity of any decade because there were no super-teams - with the talent was spread around evenly, only 2 stars were needed to be a Finals-caliber team, so there were MANY Finals-caliber teams..

A league with many Finals-caliber teams is tougher than a league with 2 Finals-caliber teams that get a free pass to the Finals every year.

There was parity in the 70's as well, but that decade is considered the worst in NBA history.

[3ba11]

There was parity in the 70's as well, but that decade is considered the worst in NBA history.


People are dumb

So a journalism major says something on ESPN and
you believe it? Based on what?

We're evaluating the competitive environment and the 70's was so competitive that Kareem lost badly most years.. So who cares if a journalism major didn't like the 70's.

Again, a league with many Finals-caliber teams is tougher than a league with 2 Finals-caliber teams that get a free pass to the Finals every year.

And the 90's had many Finals-caliber teams because expansion spread the talent around evenly so 2-star teams could win (which made more Finals-caliber teams, aka more competition)

[1987_Lakers]

People are dumb

So a journalism major says something on ESPN and
you believe it? Based on what?

We're evaluating the competitive environment and the 70's was so competitive that Kareem lost badly most years.. So who cares if a journalism major didn't like the 70's.

So the 70's was a good era? Nobody is buying that bullshit. Alot of talent in the 70's were playing in the ABA, can you imagine half of the All-stars today playing in another league? That by definition would make the NBA weaker, the 70's was an era where drug use was high and games were shown on tape delay, granted some of the 80's saw those same tape delay and drug issues, but Magic, Bird, & their super teams were the reasons why the NBA became popular again.

[3ba11]

So the 70's was a good era? Nobody is buying that bullshit. Alot of talent in the 70's were playing in the ABA, can you imagine half of the All-stars today playing in another league? That by definition would make the NBA weaker, the 70's was an era where drug use was high and games were shown on tape delay, granted some of the 80's saw those same tape delay and drug issues, but Magic, Bird, & their super teams were the reasons why the NBA became popular again.


Drugs, ABA, and perhaps weaker players made the 70's worse, but that isn't what we're talking about

We're evaluating the competitive environment and the 70's was so competitive that Kareem lost badly most years.. It was hard to win titles in the 70's and that's the point.

Again, a league with many Finals-caliber teams is tougher than a league with 2 Finals-caliber teams that get a free pass to the Finals every year.

And the 90's had many Finals-caliber teams because expansion spread the talent around evenly so 2-star teams could win (which made more Finals-caliber teams, aka more competition)

[HoopsNY]

The 2nd half of the 90s were week. Particularly 97-99.

Karl Malone is the barometer of this fact. Couldn't sniff am MVP in in 20s or early 30s. Then proceeds to win 2 in his mid 30s.

I'm tired so can't be bothered elaborating right now, but expansion and injuries made those three years the weakest in NBA history. Looking at MVP vote getters for those seasons tells the story to some extent.

Would definitely like to hear more from you regarding this.


First half of the 90s was decent with the dream team era stars all in their peaks/primes( except Magic and Bird) and alot of teams still featured good firepower. The real 'weak period' was after 95 when the biggest names were on the wrong side of 30, the league was transitioning to new stars( Shaq, Kobe, Garnett, Iverson, Hill, Penny etc etc) and the two Canadian franchises further diluting the talent across teams.

But as said it affected everyone across the board and yes, if you just dropped the 90s Bulls into 1980 they are going to likely have a better roster top to bottom as the decade progressed.

Good point(s). I do want to make it clear that while I do believe that these injury problems negatively impacted talent, I don't necessarily believe it changes the outcomes of the NBA finals in the 90s.

I think Chicago still wins regardless of teams being healthy, or their stars being alive and still playing (in the case of guys like Drazen, Lewis, Magic, and Bird).

But I do think Chicago's win totals fall somewhat. We probably don't see 72 wins, or 69. But mid-60s consistently is probable. And I still think they win six titles.

[3ba11]

The 2nd half of the 90s were week. Particularly 97-99.

Karl Malone is the barometer of this fact. Couldn't sniff am MVP in in 20s or early 30s. Then proceeds to win 2 in his mid 30s.

I'm tired so can't be bothered elaborating right now, but expansion and injuries made those three years the weakest in NBA history. Looking at MVP vote getters for those seasons tells the story to some extent.


If every team is weak, then that doesn't make the LEAGUE weak - it just means the talent is spread more evenly so each team has less than a more top-heavy league.

Perhaps your "weak teams" argument explains why Jordan won that 2nd three-peat with THE worst offensive help in history, including 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman, and 17 on 41% from Pippen in the 96-98' Playoffs, including 2 Finals of 15.7 on 40%.

[3ba11]

The 2nd half of the 90s were week. Particularly 97-99.

Karl Malone is the barometer of this fact. Couldn't sniff am MVP in in 20s or early 30s. Then proceeds to win 2 in his mid 30s.

I'm tired so can't be bothered elaborating right now, but expansion and injuries made those three years the weakest in NBA history. Looking at MVP vote getters for those seasons tells the story to some extent.


If every team is weak, then that doesn't make the LEAGUE weak - it just means the talent is spread more evenly so each team has less than the best teams in a more top-heavy league.

Perhaps your "weak teams" argument explains why Jordan won that 2nd three-peat with so little help, including the worst offensive help in history - the Bulls played 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman, while Pippen averaged 17 on 41% in the 96-98' Playoffs, including 2 Finals of 15.7 on 40%... that's the worst offensive help ever

[8Ball]

There was parity in the 70's as well, but that decade is considered the worst in NBA history.

1 sentence slay.

Parity =/= tougher era at all.



And there was no parity in the 90s. Just 1 superteam like the Warriors and nobody else.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Weaker era?

The early and mid 90s were loaded with HOFers who were in their primes. Ditto w/ young and HEALTHY stars.

With better defense, better bigs, and rules that were less catered to perimeter play, I'm not following here. Maybe in the late 90s because of expansion and older stars, but that also bled into the early 2000s.

[NBAGOAT]

I got no problem with early 90s, I mean that was the dream era. Also not totally in love with 80s because of how top heavy it was. 80s west is as bad as 00s East at times. Mid to late 90s arent great however. No mj for 2 years is a big deal and there was too much parity(that can be a bad thing too). No disrespect to hakeem but the rockets aren’t on any all time great team lists. As others have said late 90s werent great talent wise for many reasons

[AussieSteve]

Would definitely like to hear more from you regarding this.

I made a thread about this a few years ago, but I think its been purged.

The narrative is essentially this....

- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

^I forget the exact percentages, but at the time I went back and did the research.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

[3ba11]

If today's NBA said teams could only take 5-10 threes per game (like the 90's), and if the high-screen roll wasn't a thing so players had to run off a bunch of screens to get threes (like the 90's)

^^^^ that's a harder game that requires superior, pure basketball skill to produce high stats and efficiencies

[AussieSteve]

If today's NBA said teams could only take 5-10 threes per game (like the 90's), and if the high-screen roll wasn't a thing so players had to run off a bunch of screens to get threes (like the 90's)

^^^^ that's a harder game that requires superior, pure basketball skill to produce high stats and efficiencies



- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

... Get it?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Weakest to strongest era's:

1) early 1970s aba era

2) 1999-2005 slow pace with pistons nearly winning back to back and no superstar

3) 1990-1998

4) 1980s

5) 2010s

Overrated all-time greats like Kareem and Duncan were able to take advantage of the two weakest eras ever.

[AirBonner]

Kawhi in 90’s? 8 chips 8 mvps 8 fmvps 8 dpoy

[AussieSteve]

Weakest to strongest era's:

1) early 1970s aba era

2) 1999-2005 slow pace with pistons nearly winning back to back and no superstar

3) 1990-1998

4) 1980s

5) 2010s

Overrated all-time greats like Kareem and Duncan were able to take advantage of the two weakest eras ever.

The ABA era is clearly the weakest.

Since the merger there have been two major influences that impact league strength.
1. Expansion weakens the league
2. Influx of international players strengthens the league

So, league strength hit a local maxima in 1988 prior to expansion. It then expanded to a minima in 1996. Since then, the influx international players has seen it overtake all previous highs and continue to get better in terms of talent.

Injuries in Individual seasons play a role over and above this general trend, 2021 being a prime example with injuries essentially deciding the eventual champions, but aside from this, the trend is basic mathematics.

[97 bulls]

- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

... Get it?

I don't even know how you're qualifying this. The NBA has been getting international talent since the late 80s. The league changed the rules that accommodated international play.

[97 bulls]

And again, for the people in the back, if the league talent was so diluted due to expansion, (and I'm screaming this here) WHY DIDNT THE LAKER, CELTICS, OR PISTONS COME REMOTELY CLOSE TO WINNING 70 GAMES THEN???? WHY DID THE CEKTICS AND PISTONS, WHO STILL HAD THEIR CORE, AT LEAST STAY COMPETITIVE? THE CELTICS WERE 1ST ROUND FODDER AT BEST AND THE PISTONS WERE NO BETTER!!!!!.

[HoopsNY]

- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

... Get it?

This is exactly the type of de-contextualized bias that I mentioned in my OP.

It completely disregards that expansion dilutes talent for everyone including Chicago. If there is no expansion between 1989-96, then Chicago also gets to add another 1-2 all-stars/role players/sixth men/superstars via free agency, drafts, or trades.

Adding European talent means little when most European players were not defensive specialists, unless you think guys like Luka, Dirk, Nash, Manu, etc were defensive specialists and could stop MJ.

And Stockton and Malone didn't just dominate those 1-star teams, they dominated Duncan & Robinson, Hakeem/Clyde/Charles, and Shaq/Kobe/Jones/Van Exel.

But for some reason, those don't count. :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

This is exactly the type of de-contextualized bias that I mentioned in my OP.

It completely disregards that expansion dilutes talent for everyone including Chicago. If there is no expansion between 1989-96, then Chicago also gets to add another 1-2 all-stars/role players/sixth men/superstars via free agency, drafts, or trades.

Adding European talent means little when most European players were not defensive specialists, unless you think guys like Luka, Dirk, Nash, Manu, etc were defensive specialists.

And Stockton and Malone didn't just dominate those 1-star teams, they dominated Duncan & Robinson, Hakeem/Clyde/Charles, and Shaq/Kobe/Jones/Van Exel.

But for some reason, those don't count. :confusedshrug:

It's nothing but bias.

I'd also like to add that there are no guarantees when picking talent. Look at the draft. The number one picks going back to 00 has not been very good. And most are not due to injury.

[AussieSteve]

This is exactly the type of de-contextualized bias that I mentioned in my OP.

It completely disregards that expansion dilutes talent for everyone including Chicago. If there is no expansion between 1989-96, then Chicago also gets to add another 1-2 all-stars/role players/sixth men/superstars via free agency, drafts, or trades.

Adding European talent means little when most European players were not defensive specialists, unless you think guys like Luka, Dirk, Nash, Manu, etc were defensive specialists and could stop MJ.

And Stockton and Malone didn't just dominate those 1-star teams, they dominated Duncan & Robinson, Hakeem/Clyde/Charles, and Shaq/Kobe/Jones/Van Exel.

But for some reason, those don't count. :confusedshrug:


The point is, if I'm Michael Jordan in 1997, the guy defending me in a 29 team league is not as good on average as he would be if I were in a 23 team league. Often I'd be faced with someone who wouldn't get any minutes in a 23 team league. Sometimes I'd be guarded by a guy who wouldn't even crack an NBA roster in a 23 team league. There are 6 first options in this league who would have been 2nd options in a 23 league team. 12 2nd options who would have been 3rd options. 18 3rd options who would have been 4th options etc.

With the enormous increase in international players over the last 20 years, this talent deficit has been corrected. Imagine if you removed 80% of the NBA's international players at random and replaced them with G-Leaguers. Giannis, Luka, Jokic, Embiid, Gobert... four of these five guys are gone. Don't you think the remaining superstars would stand out even more than they already do? That was the 1997 NBA.



Regarding Malone/Stockton vs the Spurs, Rockets and Lakers. This kind of amplifies my point about injuries in the late 90s confounding the already diluted league.

- In 1997, DRob missed the whole season, and Barkley & Shaq missed 30 games each through injury.
- In 1998, the Rockets were up 2-1 and by double digits in the first half of game 4 against the Jazz. All they needed to do was not lose the 2nd half by 10 points and the Jazz were out in the first round. But Barkley was injured, sat the 2nd half and then he missed Game 5 and the Jazz went on to win easily.

[Chick Stern]

And again, for the people in the back, if the league talent was so diluted due to expansion, (and I'm screaming this here) WHY DIDNT THE LAKER, CELTICS, OR PISTONS COME REMOTELY CLOSE TO WINNING 70 GAMES THEN???? WHY DID THE CEKTICS AND PISTONS, WHO STILL HAD THEIR CORE, AT LEAST STAY COMPETITIVE? THE CELTICS WERE 1ST ROUND FODDER AT BEST AND THE PISTONS WERE NO BETTER!!!!!.
https://i.imgflip.com/18m9en.jpg

[97 bulls]

The point is, if I'm Michael Jordan in 1997, the guy defending me in a 29 team league is not as good on average as he would be if I were in a 23 team league. Often I'd be faced with someone who wouldn't get any minutes in a 23 team league. Sometimes I'd be guarded by a guy who wouldn't even crack an NBA roster in a 23 team league. There are 6 first options in this league who would have been 2nd options in a 23 league team. 12 2nd options who would have been 3rd options. 18 3rd options who would have been 4th options etc.

With the enormous increase in international players over the last 20 years, this talent deficit has been corrected. Imagine if you removed 80% of the NBA's international players at random and replaced them with G-Leaguers. Giannis, Luka, Jokic, Embiid, Gobert... four of these five guys are gone. Don't you think the remaining superstars would stand out even more than they already do? That was the 1997 NBA.

The changes in the rules facilitated the ability for more international players to play in the NBA. And as I said before, picking players isn't an exact science. You're making it seem like the league had to settle for the players that made the NBA in the 90s.


Regarding Malone/Stockton vs the Spurs, Rockets and Lakers. This kind of amplifies my point about injuries in the late 90s confounding the already diluted league.

- In 1997, DRob missed the whole season, and Barkley & Shaq missed 30 games each through injury.
- In 1998, the Rockets were up 2-1 and by double digits in the first half of game 4 against the Jazz. All they needed to do was not lose the 2nd half by 10 points and the Jazz were out in the first round. But Barkley was injured, sat the 2nd half and then he missed Game 5 and the Jazz went on to win easily.

There isn't one year that I can think off, where a key player or players didn't miss a substantial amount of time that changed the dynamic of the league that season. Derrick Rose immediately comes to mind. Or Amare Stoudemire for the Suns. You're showing You're bias bro.

[AussieSteve]

The changes in the rules facilitated the ability for more international players to play in the NBA. And as I said before, picking players isn't an exact science. You're making it seem like the league had to settle for the players that made the NBA in the 90s.



There isn't one year that I can think off, where a key player or players didn't miss a substantial amount of time that changed the dynamic of the league that season. Derrick Rose immediately comes to mind. Or Amare Stoudemire for the Suns. You're showing You're bias bro.

How hard is it to understand that if you take 23 teams worth of players, split them into 29 teams and fill the gaps with people who weren't good enough to make the original 23 teams, that the average player is worse. The best players are no worse but their average competition is?

Who were the top 5 international players in the league in 1996 when the Bulls won 72 games?

[97 bulls]

How hard is it to understand that if you take 23 teams worth of players, split them into 29 teams and fill the gaps with people who weren't good enough to make the original 23 teams, that the average player is worse. The best players are no worse but their average competition is?
I see your point. It's too simplistic. Picking talent has never been an exact science. For instance, how many drafts would be the same if we were to redo it?


Who were the top 5 international players in the league in 1996 when the Bulls won 72 games?

Why does it matter? I already explained that they look better today due to rule changes.

[Axe]

This is a bit surprising coming from you op

[HoopsNY]

This is a bit surprising coming from you op

? Why is that?

[Axe]

? Why is that?
I mean you do root for mj after all

[StrongLurk]

94-99 is the weakest stretch in 3-point NBA history.

[ShawkFactory]

Again, a league with many Finals-caliber teams is tougher than a league with 2 Finals-caliber teams that get a free pass to the Finals every year.


What? Literally the opposite is true.

[j3lademaster]

What? Literally the opposite is true.No it's not. If you meet a team you're 50/50 against in every round it's .5 x .5 x .5 so you have a 12-13% chance to win the chip if you're a contending team

If the nba climate is less competitive. Let's say 2017 cavs were 70% chance to win in rounds 1 and 2 and 30% in the finals: .7 x .7 x .3 = 15% to win it all.

edit: It depends on who you are on each of these scenarios too I guess. If you're the Warriors yeah it's easy. I mean Vegas literally put your odds against the field(first time in history)

[ShawkFactory]

No it's not. If you meet a team you're 50/50 against in every round it's .5 x .5 x .5 so you have a 12-13% chance to win the chip if you're a contending team

If the nba climate is less competitive. Let's say 2017 cavs were 70% chance to win in rounds 1 and 2 and 30% in the finals: .7 x .7 x .3 = 15% to win it all.

edit: It depends on who you are on each of these scenarios too I guess. If you're the Warriors yeah it's easy. I mean Vegas literally put your odds against the field(first time in history)

If you are merely a “good” team your chances are better if everyone else is just good. That’s a fact.

If there are only 2 teams that have a chance of winning a title? Well then that makes it pretty tough for the other 28 teams, no?

[j3lademaster]

If you are merely a “good” team your chances are better if everyone else is just good. That’s a fact.

If there are only 2 teams that have a chance of winning a title? Well then that makes it pretty tough for the other 28 teams, no?yeah like I edited, it depends on the perspective but I think 3ball meant for contenders. If you’re only one of 2 contenders, or 2018’s case where your competition is literally Lebron, the girl on the team who started as a gimmick and a roomba (yes snl skit) it’s easier for the contenders.

[dankok8]

How do you define weak?

Is it talent concentration i.e. # of HOFers per title team? If that's the criteria the NBA has been getting weaker since the 60's reaching its weakest in the 90's and then coming back up in recent years. But there is kind of more to the story. From the 60's to the 90's the number of teams in the NBA increased a lot so this makes sense. Then from the 90's till present, the NBA has remained at 29-30 teams but the league has made it easier for players to change teams. This hasn't increased the total amount of talent in the league but has concentrated this talent on fewer teams. The Celtics made a Big 3, then the Heat, then the Cavs, then the Warriors with KD, then the Nets last season and now the Lakers. And these superteams have been massive favorites to win titles in the last decade.

Is it how tough it is for a title contender to win a title? This is often thought to be the most difficult in eras of superteams (like 80's and 10's) but counterintuitively eras of parity like the 70's and 90's may be the most difficult. When almost every team has 1 all-star you're almost guaranteed to have 3-4 tough series in every playoff run. In the superteam era, injuries to your main rival basically guarantees your superteam a ring. Play for the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's and you're guaranteed 2-3 rings. Heck replace Magic with Kevin Johnson and the Lakers still probably win like 2 rings...

Is it the quality of the top players? If that's the criteria, the 90's are definitely not a weak era. A top crew of Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Drexler is definitely quite strong. Two guys in the top 10 and as many as six guys in the top 20 of all time.

Is the quality of the second options? If that's the criteria then it appears the Bulls had a big advantage with Pippen who is the best 2nd option on any team in the 90's but... does that mean Pippen was the best player than every 2nd option the Bulls played. No it doesn't... Worthy in 1991 (until injury) wasn't worse than Pippen, KJ in 1993 wasn't worse than Pippen, Penny in 1995 and 1996 wasn't worse than Pippen, Kemp in 1996 wasn't worse than Pippen etc. Most of these players don't have the career longevity and accolades to put them over Scottie but Pippen definitely wasn't comfortably better as a basketball player over these guys.

And even if we conclude Pippen was the best every year... Chicago still won 6 rings in 7 seasons... and played in just two elimination games in those 6 titles runs. Chicago didn't just win. They DOMINATED... I mean look at Houston that won 2 titles in the middle of the Bulls' run... they are two of the most difficult title runs ever. So Chicago didn't just win. They run roughshod over the league and had a big margin of error.

With regard to Michael Jordan, imagine he played on say the 1980's Lakers. Considering the Lakers made 8 finals in the decade and won 5 rings is it really improbable that they would have won at least 5 rings with MJ instead of Magic. Heck there is a solid chance the Lakers also win in 1981 when they got upset by Houston and Magic struggled. There is a solid chance they win in 1984 when they lost to Boston in 7 where Magic again struggled to close and got called Tragic Johnson. There is a solid chance they win in 1989 when they got swept by Detroit and Magic got injured. Jordan could have conceivably been much better than Magic in several of these series. He could have ended up with 6+ rings and nobody would be that surprised. Jordan with Kareem/Worthy/Wilkes/Scott/Cooper would be pretty insane. Heck when you look at Bird's career... He didn't have a good playoffs as a rookie in 1980, nor in 1982, got hurt in 1983, got hurt in 1985, got hurt in 1988... Jordan could have had a pretty insane run with the Celtics too. Imagine MJ with McHale, Parish, DJ...

I mean one could make a reasonable argument that MJ wins more than 6 rings playing instead of either Magic or Bird in the 80's. He's objectively a better basketball player than either and much more durable than Bird. All those years Bird was hurt, Jordan would give you 34/6/6 per game.

[HoopsNY]

I mean you do root for mj after all

Hardly. I'm just objective. I'm curious to know how anything I've said about MJ in the past has not been objective and just merely stan-like rhetoric.

I acknowledge where there is criticism and pinpoint where there are inconsistencies in the way Bran stans attack his game/legacy.

[HoopsNY]

How do you define weak?

Is it talent concentration i.e. # of HOFers per title team? If that's the criteria the NBA has been getting weaker since the 60's reaching its weakest in the 90's and then coming back up in recent years. But there is kind of more to the story. From the 60's to the 90's the number of teams in the NBA increased a lot so this makes sense. Then from the 90's till present, the NBA has remained at 29-30 teams but the league has made it easier for players to change teams. This hasn't increased the total amount of talent in the league but has concentrated this talent on fewer teams. The Celtics made a Big 3, then the Heat, then the Cavs, then the Warriors with KD, then the Nets last season and now the Lakers. And these superteams have been massive favorites to win titles in the last decade.

Is it how tough it is for a title contender to win a title? This is often thought to be the most difficult in eras of superteams (like 80's and 10's) but counterintuitively eras of parity like the 70's and 90's may be the most difficult. When almost every team has 1 all-star you're almost guaranteed to have 3-4 tough series in every playoff run. In the superteam era, injuries to your main rival basically guarantees your superteam a ring. Play for the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's and you're guaranteed 2-3 rings. Heck replace Magic with Kevin Johnson and the Lakers still probably win like 2 rings...

Is it the quality of the top players? If that's the criteria, the 90's are definitely not a weak era. A top crew of Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Drexler is definitely quite strong. Two guys in the top 10 and as many as six guys in the top 20 of all time.

Is the quality of the second options? If that's the criteria then it appears the Bulls had a big advantage with Pippen who is the best 2nd option on any team in the 90's but... does that mean Pippen was the best player than every 2nd option the Bulls played. No it doesn't... Worthy in 1991 (until injury) wasn't worse than Pippen, KJ in 1993 wasn't worse than Pippen, Penny in 1995 and 1996 wasn't worse than Pippen, Kemp in 1996 wasn't worse than Pippen etc. Most of these players don't have the career longevity and accolades to put them over Scottie but Pippen definitely wasn't comfortably better as a basketball player over these guys.

And even if we conclude Pippen was the best every year... Chicago still won 6 rings in 7 seasons... and played in just two elimination games in those 6 titles runs. Chicago didn't just win. They DOMINATED... I mean look at Houston that won 2 titles in the middle of the Bulls' run... they are two of the most difficult title runs ever. So Chicago didn't just win. They run roughshod over the league and had a big margin of error.

With regard to Michael Jordan, imagine he played on say the 1980's Lakers. Considering the Lakers made 8 finals in the decade and won 5 rings is it really improbable that they would have won at least 5 rings with MJ instead of Magic. Heck there is a solid chance the Lakers also win in 1981 when they got upset by Houston and Magic struggled. There is a solid chance they win in 1984 when they lost to Boston in 7 where Magic again struggled to close and got called Tragic Johnson. There is a solid chance they win in 1989 when they got swept by Detroit and Magic got injured. Jordan could have conceivably been much better than Magic in several of these series. He could have ended up with 6+ rings and nobody would be that surprised. Jordan with Kareem/Worthy/Wilkes/Scott/Cooper would be pretty insane. Heck when you look at Bird's career... He didn't have a good playoffs as a rookie in 1980, nor in 1982, got hurt in 1983, got hurt in 1985, got hurt in 1988... Jordan could have had a pretty insane run with the Celtics too. Imagine MJ with McHale, Parish, DJ...

I mean one could make a reasonable argument that MJ wins more than 6 rings playing instead of either Magic or Bird in the 80's. He's objectively a better basketball player than either and much more durable than Bird. All those years Bird was hurt, Jordan would give you 34/6/6 per game.

Keep in mind, when I say that the 90s was a weaker era, none of what I said really affects MJ's legacy.

Quite frankly speaking, all the arguments are poor that are used to discredit him. If there is no expansion and Chicago gets to add 1-2 quality role players or stars, then imagine Jordan/Pippen/Grant/Paxson/Armstrong alongside another talent like Seikaly and Steve Smith, or Jordan/Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc playing alongside Abdur-Rahim or Bryant Reeves.

80s Jordan didn't have a stacked roster, but that didn't stop him from dominating the way he did:

Jordan '85-89 RS: 33/6/6/3/1 on 51%
Jordan '85-'89 Playoffs: 35/7/7/2/1 on 50%

Bran stans like to discredit MJ as if to say that tougher teams would have resulted in lower production and rings. Clearly tougher teams didn't result in lower production. Just look at his output against great teams in the playoffs. And stronger teams doesn't necessitate that Chicago loses in the finals all those years, as you rightly said, they were steamrolling.

And if he is afforded the same opportunities as Barkley, Magic, Bird, or Isiah in the 80s, then certainly he'd end up with quite a few rings, with incredible production.

[Axe]

Hardly. I'm just objective. I'm curious to know how anything I've said about MJ in the past has not been objective and just merely stan-like rhetoric.

I acknowledge where there is criticism and pinpoint where there are inconsistencies in the way Bran stans attack his game/legacy.
Oh. :cheers:

[Phoenix]

The point is, if I'm Michael Jordan in 1997, the guy defending me in a 29 team league is not as good on average as he would be if I were in a 23 team league. Often I'd be faced with someone who wouldn't get any minutes in a 23 team league. Sometimes I'd be guarded by a guy who wouldn't even crack an NBA roster in a 23 team league. There are 6 first options in this league who would have been 2nd options in a 23 league team. 12 2nd options who would have been 3rd options. 18 3rd options who would have been 4th options etc.



97 MJ, if dropped in in a 23 league team, is still going to dominate, albeit with less athleticism and more skill, guile, and experience. The league expanding spread talent around, not make players individually worse. I keep hearing this narrative that players get better over time, so did the late 90's players regress because the league had more teams than it did a decade before? You're saying that expansion meant some 90's guys may not have made a team in the 80s, but I would argue that there are some 80's guys who may not be as good in the 90s either unless, again, we're saying players got worse as the time passed.

[97 bulls]

97 MJ, if dropped in in a 23 league team, is still going to dominate, albeit with less athleticism and more skill, guile, and experience. The league expanding spread talent around, not make players individually worse. I keep hearing this narrative that players get better over time, so did the late 90's players regress because the league had more teams than it did a decade before? You're saying that expansion meant some 90's guys may not have made a team in the 80s, but I would argue that there are some 80's guys who may not be as good in the 90s either unless, again, we're saying players got worse as the time passed.

Exactly. Weaker talent should've meant players like Bird and Thomas should've at least been able to be Eastern Conference contenders. The Celtics couldn't even get passed the Knicks.

[HoopsNY]

Exactly. Weaker talent should've meant players like Bird and Thomas should've at least been able to be Eastern Conference contenders. The Celtics couldn't even get passed the Knicks.

Which kinda proves my point. They lost to NY after Bird's injuries. Isiah's demise also comes as a result of injuries. He was pretty banged up by 32, and then he tore his achilles. The 90s was just awful for stars in the NBA.

[97 bulls]

Which kinda proves my point. They lost to NY after Bird's injuries. Isiah's demise also comes as a result of injuries. He was pretty banged up by 32, and then he tore his achilles. The 90s was just awful for stars in the NBA.

But Bird was 33 and played in 75 games in 90. They were first round fodder. Hell 33 year old Pippen seemed to have higher expectations.

That's why I'm saying, if the talent was so bad, then it stands to reason that the greats of the 80s should've still been good enough to be 60 win teams that were ousted in the later rounds.

[HoopsNY]

But Bird was 33 and played in 75 games in 90. They were first round fodder. Hell 33 year old Pippen seemed to have higher expectations.

That's why I'm saying, if the talent was so bad, then it stands to reason that the greats of the 80s should've still been good enough to be 60 win teams that were ousted in the later rounds.

I don't debate your last point, but the point is that while Bird still played at a high level, he wasn't anywhere near his former self. The 90s saw the demise of a lot of great players due to injury and or death. The expansion argument is misplaced simply because it doesn't factor into the fact that it diluted talent for all teams, including Chicago.

But the premise that I argued in my OP still remains - a lot of greats didn't see their longevity, and in some cases their peaks, due to unfortunate circumstances.

[97 bulls]

I don't debate your last point, but the point is that while Bird still played at a high level, he wasn't anywhere near his former self. The 90s saw the demise of a lot of great players due to injury and or death. The expansion argument is misplaced simply because it doesn't factor into the fact that it diluted talent for all teams, including Chicago.

But the premise that I argued in my OP still remains - a lot of greats didn't see their longevity, and in some cases their peaks, due to unfortunate circumstances.

I see your point. And I agree. Here's my point. If Bird is playing at let's say 80% of his former self in a watetred down league thats only 75% as good as it was when Bird was at his best, shouldn't he still be kicking ass then? As well as his Celtics team?

I just don't buy the watered down theory. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[coastalmarker99]

The four oldest MVPs in league history were awarded four years in a row

They all belong to just two players and were given in consecutive seasons:

1999 MVP:
Karl Malone (35)

1998 MVP
Michael Jordan (34)

1997 MVP
Karl Malone (33)

1996 MVP
Michael Jordan (32)

The next oldest MVP is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who was also 32 in the 1979-1980 season .

[Axe]

It's interesting to note that bill russell also has one more mvp over wilt chamberlain.

[Phoenix]

The 90s saw the demise of a lot of great players due to injury and or death.

Really we're talking 3 players here, Magic, Bird and Isiah, as far as prominent 80s' players who made it to the 90s. But players aging out and giving rise to new talent is not specific to the 90s ( as you well know) but just a sports rite of passage. I mean, you could argue that today's players never faced peak Shaq with prime Kobe alongside him or something like that. The players under 25 coming along now never dealt with peak Lebron. It's just....what it is with sports and life in general.

The 90's players opposing Chicago was still loaded with HOF talent, especially from 90-95. Hakeem, Shaq( he peaked in 2000 but he was still a force the moment he entered the league), Admiral, Malone, Barkley are all top 20 players and they were all in their prime years in that space of time. Ewing is a top 25-30 ish level player ( and would comfortably be top 25 if he had even won a single title in like, 94). Even Penny Hardaway, albeit an abbreviated prime, in 95 or 96 was a all-time great guard( in terms of on the floor) and MJ had to deal with him at 32-33 years old. But all those bolded players were prominent even in the 80s and just happened to peak in the 90s based on the common logic that players max out in that 27-32 age bracket.

The premise that MJ mostly was *that* dominant ( the common ISH retard argument) doesn't hold much water for me because it's silly to think that if you give him multiple HOFers in the 80s( like Magic and Bird had) he isn't going to flat-out dominate and possibly even moreso because he was simply better individually than either of those two. There's never been any debate about that( none that can be taken seriously). Hell, if you put peak MJ on the Bucks they probably win a couple.

I think we can all agree that it's mainly the back nine of the 90s( which has already been said) that is the 'weak' period due to the further expansion of the league and the 90's stars aging into their mid 30's. Even with MJ, he himself wasn't at his peak nor was Pippen after 96. Shit, if you dropped the 92 Bulls into 1997 they probably win 75 games and go 15-1 in the playoffs or some crazy shit like that. But ultimately, the better version of MJ, Pippen and the Bulls played in the better half of the decade( 90-95) and dominated it until MJ left, or I would put good money on them at least winning the 94 title with a 31 year old MJ, peak Pippen and Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and all the other roster upgrades. That would have probably been the best version of that Bulls dynasty had it played out that way, and 94 was still a pretty solid year competitively.

[Airupthere]

Really we're talking 3 players here, Magic, Bird and Isiah, as far as prominent 80s' players who made it to the 90s. But players aging out and giving rise to new talent is not specific to the 90s ( as you well know) but just a sports rite of passage. I mean, you could argue that today's players never faced peak Shaq with prime Kobe alongside him or something like that. The players under 25 coming along now never dealt with peak Lebron. It's just....what it is with sports and life in general.

The 90's players opposing Chicago was still loaded with HOF talent, especially from 90-95. Hakeem, Shaq( he peaked in 2000 but he was still a force the moment he entered the league), Admiral, Malone, Barkley are all top 20 players and they were all in their prime years in that space of time. Ewing is a top 25-30 ish level player ( and would comfortably be top 25 if he had even won a single title in like, 94). Even Penny Hardaway, albeit an abbreviated prime, in 95 or 96 was a all-time great guard( in terms of on the floor) and MJ had to deal with him at 32-33 years old. But all those bolded players were prominent even in the 80s and just happened to peak in the 90s based on the common logic that players max out in that 27-32 age bracket.

The premise that MJ mostly was *that* dominant ( the common ISH retard argument) doesn't hold much water for me because it's silly to think that if you give him multiple HOFers in the 80s( like Magic and Bird had) he isn't going to flat-out dominate and possibly even moreso because he was simply better individually than either of those two. There's never been any debate about that( none that can be taken seriously). Hell, if you put peak MJ on the Bucks they probably win a couple.

I think we can all agree that it's mainly the back nine of the 90s( which has already been said) that is the 'weak' period due to the further expansion of the league and the 90's stars aging into their mid 30's. Even with MJ, he himself wasn't at his peak nor was Pippen after 96. Shit, if you dropped the 92 Bulls into 1997 they probably win 75 games and go 15-1 in the playoffs or some crazy shit like that. But ultimately, the better version of MJ, Pippen and the Bulls played in the better half of the decade( 90-95) and dominated it until MJ left, or I would put good money on them at least winning the 94 title with a 31 year old MJ, peak Pippen and Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and all the other roster upgrades. That would have probably been the best version of that Bulls dynasty had it played out that way, and 94 was still a pretty solid year competitively.

Excellent post

[97 bulls]

Really we're talking 3 players here, Magic, Bird and Isiah, as far as prominent 80s' players who made it to the 90s. But players aging out and giving rise to new talent is not specific to the 90s ( as you well know) but just a sports rite of passage. I mean, you could argue that today's players never faced peak Shaq with prime Kobe alongside him or something like that. The players under 25 coming along now never dealt with peak Lebron. It's just....what it is with sports and life in general.

The 90's players opposing Chicago was still loaded with HOF talent, especially from 90-95. Hakeem, Shaq( he peaked in 2000 but he was still a force the moment he entered the league), Admiral, Malone, Barkley are all top 20 players and they were all in their prime years in that space of time. Ewing is a top 25-30 ish level player ( and would comfortably be top 25 if he had even won a single title in like, 94). Even Penny Hardaway, albeit an abbreviated prime, in 95 or 96 was a all-time great guard( in terms of on the floor) and MJ had to deal with him at 32-33 years old. But all those bolded players were prominent even in the 80s and just happened to peak in the 90s based on the common logic that players max out in that 27-32 age bracket.

The premise that MJ mostly was *that* dominant ( the common ISH retard argument) doesn't hold much water for me because it's silly to think that if you give him multiple HOFers in the 80s( like Magic and Bird had) he isn't going to flat-out dominate and possibly even moreso because he was simply better individually than either of those two. There's never been any debate about that( none that can be taken seriously). Hell, if you put peak MJ on the Bucks they probably win a couple.

I think we can all agree that it's mainly the back nine of the 90s( which has already been said) that is the 'weak' period due to the further expansion of the league and the 90's stars aging into their mid 30's. Even with MJ, he himself wasn't at his peak nor was Pippen after 96. Shit, if you dropped the 92 Bulls into 1997 they probably win 75 games and go 15-1 in the playoffs or some crazy shit like that. But ultimately, the better version of MJ, Pippen and the Bulls played in the better half of the decade( 90-95) and dominated it until MJ left, or I would put good money on them at least winning the 94 title with a 31 year old MJ, peak Pippen and Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and all the other roster upgrades. That would have probably been the best version of that Bulls dynasty had it played out that way, and 94 was still a pretty solid year competitively.

I disagree. I don't think the talent was "thinned out" to cause any noticeable differences in the back half and nid 90s.

I mean how are we arriving at this conclusion? The Bulls had much more depth on the second 3pt. Jordan wasn't the typical 33 year old since he took almost 2 years off. And was a much better player mentally.

[Phoenix]

I disagree. I don't think the talent was "thinned out" to cause any noticeable differences in the back half and nid 90s.

I mean how are we arriving at this conclusion? The Bulls had much more depth on the second 3pt. Jordan wasn't the typical 33 year old since he took almost 2 years off. And was a much better player mentally.

Thinned out in the sense that the players I mentioned in the last post were on the back-end of their prime, the newer stars weren't quite ready for primetime. If you had, say, the early 90's version of those dream teamers in the 95-99 period that would have mitigated talent being distributed around due to 2 more teams joining the league. I don't consider the late 90's a 'weak' period in general, I'm merely using that term within the context of the discussion at hand. The early 90's was definitely stronger overall, both in terms of top-end peak talent but the teams as well.

Jordan at 33 was clearly a top tier MVP player but I personally wouldn't take that version over the 90-93 MJ, mentally he was sharp as a tack then, better athletically and had a better motor to go all out on both ends. He employed more guile in the 2nd 3peat but needed to pick his spots more, as you'd expect of any athlete in their mid 30's.

Which conclusion are you referring to? My comments on the early 90s vs late 90s Bulls? I personally consider the Jordan/Pippen/Grant trio better than the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman trio, even being less experienced I think they were all seasoned enough by 92 due to all those wars with the Pistons and Knicks, and were more dynamic talents. The 96 Bulls were deeper top to bottom, but I'm not sure that balances out or swings the favor over to the 2nd 3peat team.

[Mr. Woke]

The 80s/90s were so weak that a 5 foot 3 guy was able to have a relatively long career.

Nowadays, no 5 foot 3 guy could play in the NBA.

The modern NBA is just too tough/competitive.

[Airupthere]

The 80s/90s were so weak that a 5 foot 3 guy was able to have a relatively long career.

Nowadays, no 5 foot 3 guy could play in the NBA.

The modern NBA is just too tough/competitive.

Yeah but nowadays, a 5'7 IT can average 28 ppg.

[Mr. Woke]

Yeah but nowadays, a 5'7 IT can average 28 ppg.

IT is 5 foot 9 and in his prime was extremely talented.

The modern NBA is the toughest and most competitive era in NBA history.

[Airupthere]

IT is 5 foot 9 and in his prime was extremely talented.

The modern NBA is the toughest and most competitive era in NBA history.

I saw IT. He can't seriously be 5'9. He is 5'8 at best.

[Phoenix]

The 80s/90s were so weak that a 5 foot 3 guy was able to have a relatively long career.

Nowadays, no 5 foot 3 guy could play in the NBA.

The modern NBA is just too tough/competitive.

Earl Boydkins was 5'5 in high heels playing as recently as 2007, amidst a group of players that very easily could play in today's league.

[Mr. Woke]

I saw IT. He can't seriously be 5'9. He is 5'8 at best.

He is 5 foot 9 with shoes on.

[Mr. Woke]

Earl Boydkins was 5'5 in high heels playing as recently as 2007, amidst a group of players that very easily could play in today's league.

Earl was 5 foot 5 in basketball shoes (taller than Bogues).

He was never a full-time starter either. Bogues was a starter for several seasons.

No wonder the 80s/90s Hornets didn't achieve anything significant :roll:

Bogues would be unplayable in the modern NBA.

[Phoenix]

Earl was 5 foot 5 in basketball shoes (taller than Bogues).

He was never a full-time starter either. Bogues was a starter for several seasons.

No wonder the 80s/90s Hornets didn't achieve anything significant :roll:

Bogues would be unplayable in the modern NBA.

You said no 5'3 guy could 'play in the modern NBA', whether it be to start or come off the bench. Boykins was averaging 15ppg in 2007. Let's not act like there's some dramatic difference, in NBA terms, between someone 5'3 and 5'5.

[Nowitness]

MJ had to 'bulk' to 210 to absorb the punishment given out by the Bad Boys. It really is laughable, yeah the game was dirtier back then, but more physical? Steph Curry has more muscle mass than Bill Laimbeer had.

The illegal defenses also made it far easier for stars to dominate. You either hard committed to a double team or allowed an isolation.

Expansion era also made the regular season far easier. Playing 82 games a year isn't as impressive when 16 are against expansion teams.

[Mr. Woke]

You said no 5'3 guy could 'play in the modern NBA', whether it be to start or come off the bench. Boykins was averaging 15ppg in 2007. Let's not act like there's some dramatic difference, in NBA terms, between someone 5'3 and 5'5.

Correct. When I am talking about the modern NBA I am talking about 2015 to the present.

Boykins was never a full time starter. Bogues was a full time starter for several seasons (which was a big reason why the 80s/90s Hornets never achieved anything significant).

[97 bulls]

Thinned out in the sense that the players I mentioned in the last post were on the back-end of their prime, the newer stars weren't quite ready for primetime. If you had, say, the early 90's version of those dream teamers in the 95-99 period that would have mitigated talent being distributed around due to 2 more teams joining the league. I don't consider the late 90's a 'weak' period in general, I'm merely using that term within the context of the discussion at hand. The early 90's was definitely stronger overall, both in terms of top-end peak talent but the teams as well.

Jordan at 33 was clearly a top tier MVP player but I personally wouldn't take that version over the 90-93 MJ, mentally he was sharp as a tack then, better athletically and had a better motor to go all out on both ends. He employed more guile in the 2nd 3peat but needed to pick his spots more, as you'd expect of any athlete in their mid 30's.

Which conclusion are you referring to? My comments on the early 90s vs late 90s Bulls? I personally consider the Jordan/Pippen/Grant trio better than the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman trio, even being less experienced I think they were all seasoned enough by 92 due to all those wars with the Pistons and Knicks, and were more dynamic talents. The 96 Bulls were deeper top to bottom, but I'm not sure that balances out or swings the favor over to the 2nd 3peat team.

I'd take the 2nd 3pt team. There's no situation where I take Rodman over Grant. Put 96 Rodman in place of Grany in 94, and I think the Bulls got passed the Knicks. Even get to the Championship. Ewing killed the Bulls bigs that series. Rodman ways had an impact against opposing bigs. Don't get me wrong, Grant was good. Rodman was great.

Like I stated, I don't see a difference between Jordan 1st 3pt and 2nd 3pt. Because even though he was I'm his mid 30, he didn't have the miles because he took 2 years off.

There were times when Jordan looked gassed like for instance in 92 vs the Blazers.

I think people get too hung up on statistics without realizing the dynamics of the league. NBA toughest Era defensively was from 95 to 05. I don't know why people don't see that the 96-98 Bulls in any other Era would look much better statistically. But in the mid to late 90s? Teams didn't want to get out in transition, they ran almost a half court offense exclusively, there was more of an emphasis on defense.

[97 bulls]

Correct. When I am talking about the modern NBA I am talking about 2015 to the present.

Boykins was never a full time starter. Bogues was a full time starter for several seasons (which was a big reason why the 80s/90s Hornets never achieved anything significant).

How many ppg would Boykins average if he was a full time starter?

[Phoenix]

Correct. When I am talking about the modern NBA I am talking about 2015 to the present.

Boykins was never a full time starter. Bogues was a full time starter for several seasons (which was a big reason why the 80s/90s Hornets never achieved anything significant).

Oh so you're saying the guys who played wayyyyyyyyy back in 2007 couldn't make it from 2015 onwards? So all the guys who've been playing since 2015 should be useless by around.....2023?

[HoopsNY]

IT is 5 foot 9 and in his prime was extremely talented.

The modern NBA is the toughest and most competitive era in NBA history.

Toughest and most competitive? That's laughable. You can't even touch a player on defense without being called for flagrant fouls, to the point that players are being ejected for shit that would be labeled as, well, nothing in prior eras.

Players load manage and don't even go past playing 32-33 mpg, yet today is somehow the "toughest" and "most competitive"? How do you "modern fans" say that with a straight face?

[Phoenix]

I'd take the 2nd 3pt team. There's no situation where I take Rodman over Grant. Put 96 Rodman in place of Grany in 94, and I think the Bulls got passed the Knicks. Even get to the Championship. Ewing killed the Bulls bigs that series. Rodman ways had an impact against opposing bigs. Don't get me wrong, Grant was good. Rodman was great.

Like I stated, I don't see a difference between Jordan 1st 3pt and 2nd 3pt. Because even though he was I'm his mid 30, he didn't have the miles because he took 2 years off.

There were times when Jordan looked gassed like for instance in 92 vs the Blazers.

I think people get too hung up on statistics without realizing the dynamics of the league. NBA toughest Era defensively was from 95 to 05. I don't know why people don't see that the 96-98 Bulls in any other Era would look much better statistically. But in the mid to late 90s? Teams didn't want to get out in transition, they ran almost a half court offense exclusively, there was more of an emphasis on defense.

You mean take Grant over Rodman? Well yeah, I would take 96 Rodman over any version of Grant, but I would take 92 and 93 Grant over 98 Rodman, maybe 97. Depends on which year and version of each guy we're discussing.

I wasn't using stats as any measure of the strength or weakness of the periods in question. I'm just looking at the talent in a vacuum. Which period would you say had the better overall talent, especially at the top: 90-95 or 95 to 99?

[97 bulls]

MJ had to 'bulk' to 210 to absorb the punishment given out by the Bad Boys. It really is laughable, yeah the game was dirtier back then, but more physical? Steph Curry has more muscle mass than Bill Laimbeer had.

If Bill Laimbeer collided with Steph Curry, Curry would end up in intensive care.


The illegal defenses also made it far easier for stars to dominate. You either hard committed to a double team or allowed an isolation.

This just isn't true. Why are? Because teams can't put a 7 foot center in the middle of the paint to protect everyone. Oh,, and the league is very liberal on travels and especially carrying the ball today.


Expansion era also made the regular season far easier. Playing 82 games a year isn't as impressive when 16 are against expansion teams.

But the Bulls lost to an expansion team in 96. Why didn't the Lakers, Pistons or Celtics win considerably more games with expansion in 88 and 89?

[Phoenix]

But the Bulls lost to an expansion team in 96. Why didn't the Lakers, Pistons or Celtics win considerably more games with expansion in 88 and 89?

That's a good point. And we're talking 4 teams( Minny, Miami, Minesota, Orlando) versus 2( Toronto, Vancouver). One would assume the 'superior' 80 teams would have been winning 70 games under such conditions.

[97 bulls]

You mean take Grant over Rodman? Well yeah, I would take 96 Rodman over any version of Grant, but I would take 92 and 93 Grant over 98 Rodman, maybe 97. Depends on which year and version of each guy we're discussing.

I wasn't using stats as any measure of the strength or weakness of the periods in question. I'm just looking at the talent in a vacuum. Which period would you say had the better overall talent, especially at the top: 90-95 or 95 to 99?

Not you, just overall. I honestly don't think talent will ever be to a level where we can make a claim like I keep hearing about the mid to late 90s. It's like people think the NBA has to settle for players.

[97 bulls]

You mean take Grant over Rodman? Well yeah, I would take 96 Rodman over any version of Grant, but I would take 92 and 93 Grant over 98 Rodman, maybe 97. Depends on which year and version of each guy we're discussing.

I wasn't using stats as any measure of the strength or weakness of the periods in question. I'm just looking at the talent in a vacuum. Which period would you say had the better overall talent, especially at the top: 90-95 or 95 to 99?

Lol. My bad. Yes, I don't see a situation where I'd take Grant over Rodman.

97 and 98 Rodman gets a raw deal. Especially 98. 97 Rodman didn't make all defense because he was suspended for 30 games for kicking the camera man.

98 Rodman? Go back and look at what Rodman did to Malone in the 98 Finals. He shut him down. There's a video that literally shows every possession where Rodman guarded Malone in the 98 Finals. I'd say 90% of Karl Malones points came at the expense of someone not named Rodman. He was still an awesome defender. Again if 98 Rodman is inserted in that 94 series vs the Knicks, yeah you lose offense, but you gain soooo much on defense. And I think Rodman wasn't a bad scorer to begin with. He just didn't look to score. He didn't need to be a scorer with Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc there.

[HoopsNY]

Really we're talking 3 players here, Magic, Bird and Isiah, as far as prominent 80s' players who made it to the 90s. But players aging out and giving rise to new talent is not specific to the 90s ( as you well know) but just a sports rite of passage. I mean, you could argue that today's players never faced peak Shaq with prime Kobe alongside him or something like that. The players under 25 coming along now never dealt with peak Lebron. It's just....what it is with sports and life in general.

It's more than just Magic, Isiah, and Bird. I mentioned guys like Drazen and Lewis, too. You could even go further and look at guys like Ron Harper as well. The difference here is that those guys (Shaq, Kobe, LeBron), enjoyed longevity and a full career. Guys like Magic and Bird were barely lasting 12-13 seasons. It's enough for them to make an impact, but it undercuts their contribution not only to the league, but their teammates as well.

Guys like Lewis and Drazen didn't even have that luxury, and when we go further, there are so many more (Penny, KJ, Daugherty, etc).


The 90's players opposing Chicago was still loaded with HOF talent, especially from 90-95. Hakeem, Shaq( he peaked in 2000 but he was still a force the moment he entered the league), Admiral, Malone, Barkley are all top 20 players and they were all in their prime years in that space of time. Ewing is a top 25-30 ish level player ( and would comfortably be top 25 if he had even won a single title in like, 94). Even Penny Hardaway, albeit an abbreviated prime, in 95 or 96 was a all-time great guard( in terms of on the floor) and MJ had to deal with him at 32-33 years old. But all those bolded players were prominent even in the 80s and just happened to peak in the 90s based on the common logic that players max out in that 27-32 age bracket.


That is a fair point, but my point isn't to detract from what Chicago did. I don't believe Chicago has any less rings if guys were alive and or healthy.


The premise that MJ mostly was *that* dominant ( the common ISH retard argument) doesn't hold much water for me because it's silly to think that if you give him multiple HOFers in the 80s( like Magic and Bird had) he isn't going to flat-out dominate and possibly even moreso because he was simply better individually than either of those two. There's never been any debate about that( none that can be taken seriously). Hell, if you put peak MJ on the Bucks they probably win a couple.


Which is essentially my point concerning the expansion argument. MJ wasn't great because of expansion, nor did Chicago win 6 rings because of it, either.


I think we can all agree that it's mainly the back nine of the 90s( which has already been said) that is the 'weak' period due to the further expansion of the league and the 90's stars aging into their mid 30's. Even with MJ, he himself wasn't at his peak nor was Pippen after 96. Shit, if you dropped the 92 Bulls into 1997 they probably win 75 games and go 15-1 in the playoffs or some crazy shit like that. But ultimately, the better version of MJ, Pippen and the Bulls played in the better half of the decade( 90-95) and dominated it until MJ left, or I would put good money on them at least winning the 94 title with a 31 year old MJ, peak Pippen and Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and all the other roster upgrades. That would have probably been the best version of that Bulls dynasty had it played out that way, and 94 was still a pretty solid year competitively.

I'd have to go back and look at the draft classes, but 1988-93 weren't all that impressive. They had some stars sprinkled in, but it wasn't like what we saw from 1994 onward. So I think it's a combination of talent being phased out coupled with inadequate talent replacing them.

1994 Bulls probably win 70-72 games just off of the strength of MJ and Pippen being at their peaks. Throw in rookie Kukoc, peak Grant, and peak Armstrong, and that team might just go undefeated through the entire playoffs.

[Phoenix]

Lol. My bad. Yes, I don't see a situation where I'd take Grant over Rodman.

97 and 98 Rodman gets a raw deal. Especially 98. 97 Rodman didn't make all defense because he was suspended for 30 games for kicking the camera man.

98 Rodman? Go back and look at what Rodman did to Malone in the 98 Finals. He shut him down. There's a video that literally shows every possession where Rodman guarded Malone in the 98 Finals. I'd say 90% of Karl Malones points came at the expense of someone not named Rodman. He was still an awesome defender. Again if 98 Rodman is inserted in that 94 series vs the Knicks, yeah you lose offense, but you gain soooo much on defense. And I think Rodman wasn't a bad scorer to begin with. He just didn't look to score. He didn't need to be a scorer with Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc there.

To be frank I feel like we're mostly splitting hairs with these two versions of the Bulls. If we could hypothetically put them in a time capsule and have, say, the 92 Bulls play the 96 Bulls over 10 series, they're going to beat each other and be pretty even in general IMHO. They would each be the toughest opponent they ever faced in that decade. I just tend to prefer the first 3peat but we're discussing my all-time favorite team so I don't feel 'that' strongly to debate too heavily which version is better.

[Nowitness]

If Bill Laimbeer collided with Steph Curry, Curry would end up in intensive care.


This just isn't true. Why are? Because teams can't put a 7 foot center in the middle of the paint to protect everyone. Oh,, and the league is very liberal on travels and especially carrying the ball today.



But the Bulls lost to an expansion team in 96. Why didn't the Lakers, Pistons or Celtics win considerably more games with expansion in 88 and 89?

Thing is Curry wouldn't. He is standing up to guys who weigh 270 and are cut. Laimbeer literally had the arms of an old lady. Imagine confusing dirty with physical.

[Phoenix]

1) It's more than just Magic, Isiah, and Bird. I mentioned guys like Drazen and Lewis, too. You could even go further and look at guys like Ron Harper as well. The difference here is that those guys (Shaq, Kobe, LeBron), enjoyed longevity and a full career. Guys like Magic and Bird were barely lasting 12-13 seasons. It's enough for them to make an impact, but it undercuts their contribution not only to the league, but their teammates as well.

Guys like Lewis and Drazen didn't even have that luxury, and when we go further, there are so many more (Penny, KJ, Daugherty, etc).


2) I'd have to go back and look at the draft classes, but 1988-93 weren't all that impressive. They had some stars sprinkled in, but it wasn't like what we saw from 1994 onward. So I think it's a combination of talent being phased out coupled with inadequate talent replacing them.

1994 Bulls probably win 70-72 games just off of the strength of MJ and Pippen being at their peaks. Throw in rookie Kukoc, peak Grant, and peak Armstrong, and that team might just go undefeated through the entire playoffs.

1) I missed your posts talking about those guys, but I was moreso thinking about the level of players who were carrying the league. Lewis and Drazen were great talents but the balance of power would have never depended on whatever team they were playing on. In terms of those upper tier HOF talents that dominated the 80's but faded out in the early 90's, it's the aforementioned three who led the teams responsible for every 80's chip save for 83.

2) Off the top of my head, 88-93 gave us Robinson ( was supposed to be 87) and Shaq 92, with alot of 2nd tier stars sprinkled in. You're correct on that, but most of the annual MVP level talent started 84 and 85( MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Ewing). Guys like Drexler and Nique were a few years earlier. Time 90 rolled around, these guys were all between 26-32. That's high level talent in their peak years.

The only reason I would argue against the 94 Bulls winning 70 games would be because of pacing for a 4th title run. The 93 Bulls were quite clearly a 60+ win team that 'only' won 57 games because MJ and Pip came off the Olympics. This was before modern load management where the stars are either logging less than 36 minutes a night or taking off games. I'd imagine the 94 team would 'manage' as well but just on talent, they were quite capable of 70 wins, I just don't think it's a mark they'd be shooting for. The 96 team had MJ coming back for revenge after losing to the Magic in the 95 playoffs, there were motivational layers there to wreck shop that the 94 team wouldn't have had.

[Mr. Woke]

How many ppg would Boykins average if he was a full time starter?

No idea boyo.

I'm not a magician.

[Mr. Woke]

Oh so you're saying the guys who played wayyyyyyyyy back in 2007 couldn't make it from 2015 onwards? So all the guys who've been playing since 2015 should be useless by around.....2023?

Most would be fine, but lower level role players like Earl would get phased out.

[Mr. Woke]

Toughest and most competitive? That's laughable. You can't even touch a player on defense without being called for flagrant fouls, to the point that players are being ejected for shit that would be labeled as, well, nothing in prior eras.

Players load manage and don't even go past playing 32-33 mpg, yet today is somehow the "toughest" and "most competitive"? How do you "modern fans" say that with a straight face?

The game is way more intense nowadays, and the pace is faster than 90s ball.

The modern NBA is the toughest/most competitive era. Previous eras were softer.

People like you have no idea how the world works.

[dankok8]

The modern NBA is the toughest/most competitive era. Previous eras were softer.



:oldlol:

[Mr. Woke]

:oldlol:

Don't be in denial.

Oldheads are living in the past :roll:

[HoopsNY]

1) I missed your posts talking about those guys, but I was moreso thinking about the level of players who were carrying the league. Lewis and Drazen were great talents but the balance of power would have never depended on whatever team they were playing on. In terms of those upper tier HOF talents that dominated the 80's but faded out in the early 90's, it's the aforementioned three who led the teams responsible for every 80's chip save for 83.

Well, I guess I'm looking more at impact. A healthy Bird+Lewis provides some serious damage, and we never got to see Lewis at his apex. Look at the playoffs he had in 1992, as an example:

10 games; 28/4/4/3/1 on 57% TS%.

If Bird is full-strength, even at 35, what's that team looking like?

And my point about Drazen is that after his death, the Nets won 45 games. A Drazen-Anderson-Coleman trio is a legit contender, and easily wins 50+ games.


2) Off the top of my head, 88-93 gave us Robinson ( was supposed to be 87) and Shaq 92, with alot of 2nd tier stars sprinkled in. You're correct on that, but most of the annual MVP level talent started 84 and 85( MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Ewing). Guys like Drexler and Nique were a few years earlier. Time 90 rolled around, these guys were all between 26-32. That's high level talent in their peak years.


Right, so the late 80s and early 90s gave way to lesser talent. It's just a fact when we consider the draft classes.


The only reason I would argue against the 94 Bulls winning 70 games would be because of pacing for a 4th title run. The 93 Bulls were quite clearly a 60+ win team that 'only' won 57 games because MJ and Pip came off the Olympics. This was before modern load management where the stars are either logging less than 36 minutes a night or taking off games. I'd imagine the 94 team would 'manage' as well but just on talent, they were quite capable of 70 wins, I just don't think it's a mark they'd be shooting for. The 96 team had MJ coming back for revenge after losing to the Magic in the 95 playoffs, there were motivational layers there to wreck shop that the 94 team wouldn't have had.

True, but Pippen was healthy in 1994 and peaked, becoming an MVP candidate. Grant was an All-Star and won All-Defensive 2nd Team honors. Armstrong was also at his peak.

That '94 team with MJ steamrolls the entire league, including Hakeem and the Rockets. They probably sweep the entire playoffs. 1995, though, would be a different story.

[HoopsNY]

The game is way more intense nowadays, and the pace is faster than 90s ball.

"Way more intense"? That must be why the league is changing the rules to prevent incessant flopping. It must also be why rule changes ballooned points. I mean, do you even watch the game? It's a 3 point fest. What's so "intense" about that? Must be real "intense" to have Rudy Tootie "clobbering" opponents in the paint, said nobody, ever.


The modern NBA is the toughest/most competitive era. Previous eras were softer.


Which is why players say the exact opposite. Which is why players like Luka say international ball is tougher. Yea, this is all really coming together. I mean, guys are repeatedly getting fined for flopping. Hell, James Harden got fined.......twice.......in the same season.


People like you have no idea how the world works.

Clearly. I'm probably 15+ years older, married, with kids, with a career. I mean, I must know a thing or two about how the world works. But I guess I don't. So yea.....there we are......I don't know how the world works......umm, erm....yea. You win.

[Mr. Woke]

"Way more intense"? That must be why the league is changing the rules to prevent incessant flopping. It must also be why rule changes ballooned points. I mean, do you even watch the game? It's a 3 point fest. What's so "intense" about that? Must be real "intense" to have Rudy Tootie "clobbering" opponents in the paint, said nobody, ever.



Which is why players say the exact opposite. Which is why players like Luka say international ball is tougher. Yea, this is all really coming together. I mean, guys are repeatedly getting fined for flopping. Hell, James Harden got fined.......twice.......in the same season.



Clearly. I'm probably 15+ years older, married, with kids, with a career. I mean, I must know a thing or two about how the world works. But I guess I don't. So yea.....there we are......I don't know how the world works......umm, erm....yea. You win.

Players are more skilled than ever before. Back in previous eras, it was all about midrange chuck fests/endless post ups that are boring as shit.

International ball is weaker. The US won gold again this summer.

You don't. Your wack ass mentality is due to ignorance and stupidity.

[NBAGOAT]

The current era is very good when healthy. You can complain about AAU but every draft class produces a few stars right now so at least top end talent wise it’s pretty good. International talent is huge there and also why role players are better than ever imo. A lot of wings do have a narrow skillset which is shoot the 3 but it’s no less impressive than say being a big body in the 90s and requires a little more skill lol. Flopping is definitely not “tough” or “honorable” but really just another skillset offensive players have developed that makes them harder to giard.

To use another game as an example, poker has transitioned at the top levels from a game a lot of the best players relied on intuition to one where the best players follow a highly structured optimal strategy. It certainly isn’t as entertaining but it’s more effective. Also would point out the large majority of the current best players are very young because the older players had a hard time changing their game.

Experience definitely matters but also may lead to being less willing to adjust. OP doesn’t like the 3 point spamming and I don’t blame him, I watched long enough too to know basketball hasn’t been played this way til the last few years. However according to the majority of opinions that matter(guys who work for a team front office coaches etc), it’s just a smart optimal strategy.

[Phoenix]

.

1) And my point about Drazen is that after his death, the Nets won 45 games. A Drazen-Anderson-Coleman trio is a legit contender, and easily wins 50+ games.



2)True, but Pippen was healthy in 1994 and peaked, becoming an MVP candidate. Grant was an All-Star and won All-Defensive 2nd Team honors. Armstrong was also at his peak.

3)That '94 team with MJ steamrolls the entire league, including Hakeem and the Rockets. They probably sweep the entire playoffs. 1995, though, would be a different story.

1) Absolutely, but I don't think that team is any more a threat than teams the Bulls handled in that period like the Suns, Blazers, and Knicks.

2) Yes but still, for a team to bust out the gate like that takes some special circumstances and when you get to a certain record, you start thinking hmmm 'that 72 Lakers squad is in our crosshairs'. We don't know if the 94 Bulls would have burst out of the gate like that and prioritize the record over a 4th chip. Not really worth heavily speculating on IMHO.

3) Absolutely, though I think a series with Houston would have been a solidly competitive 6 game series. I don't see them sweeping or taking Hakeem out 'that' easy.

[RogueBorg]

Weakest to strongest era's:

1) early 1970s aba era

2) 1999-2005 slow pace with pistons nearly winning back to back and no superstar

3) 1990-1998

4) 1980s

5) 2010s

Overrated all-time greats like Kareem and Duncan were able to take advantage of the two weakest eras ever.

Where's the 50's and 60's and all their splendor of 8 teams in the league?

[3ba11]

Eras with super-teams are the weak eras because those super-teams get free passes to the Finals (where they face the other super-team) - otoh, eras without super-teams have to battle and scrape just to make the Finals because no team has a big talent advantage (no super-teams).

And it doesn't matter that Jordan didn't play any super-teams because he never had any super-teams himself - otoh, Lebron faced super-teams WITH super-teams, so who gives a shit.. he mostly lost with super-teams, so he's a bum.. /thread

[RogueBorg]

Correct. When I am talking about the modern NBA I am talking about 2015 to the present.



2014 wasn't modern NBA? How old are you, 9?

[JBSptfn]

The 90's NBA wasn't just missing Petrovic (and prime Bird), it was missing Bias, a prime Sabonis, and Benji Wilson. Also, it missed the pre-injury Ron Harper.

[expansionera]

Guys like Jack Sikma and Kelly Tripucka were superstar players in Jordan’s weak era. Give it a rest, Damian Lillard and Trae Young get snubbed today the competition level is insane. Curry—the league’s leading scorer and 3rd in MVP voting—missed the playoffs.

Six teams were added to the league in Jordan’s prime, there’s really not much of a debate to be had it’s just nostalgia.

[Hey Yo]

The 90's NBA wasn't just missing Petrovic (and prime Bird), it was missing Bias, a prime Sabonis, and Benji Wilson. Also, it missed the pre-injury Ron Harper.

Bird was 33yrs old for the 1990 season. Definitely wasn't still in his prime even if healthy.

[RogueBorg]

Guys like Jack Sikma and Kelly Tripucka were superstar players in Jordan’s weak era.

LOL no they weren't. Stick to the basketball you know which was from about 2018 forward.

[expansionera]

LOL no they weren't. Stick to the basketball you know which was from about 2018 forward.

Obvious hyperbole but the fact they made all stars teams is evidence enough Jordan played in a weaker era. Who do they displace on the all star team today?

[HoopsNY]

Guys like Jack Sikma and Kelly Tripucka were superstar players in Jordan’s weak era. Give it a rest, Damian Lillard and Trae Young get snubbed today the competition level is insane. Curry—the league’s leading scorer and 3rd in MVP voting—missed the playoffs.

Six teams were added to the league in Jordan’s prime, there’s really not much of a debate to be had it’s just nostalgia.

Tripucka was never a superstar and I doubt Sikma was, either. Sikma never won All-NBA, and neither did Tripucka, but they're superstars?

Furthermore, Sikma came into the league in 1977 and was pretty much done by 1985. You're not discussing the same era, really.

The expansion argument is flawed. See my original post.

[HoopsNY]

Bird was 33yrs old for the 1990 season. Definitely wasn't still in his prime even if healthy.

How so? A 33 year old Bird was putting up 24/10/8/1/1 on 47/33/93 splits. This was post-injury. If Bird isn't dealing with that, what's he doing then? 26/11/8/2/2 on 50/40/93? Bird was All-NBA 2nd Team in 1990. He probably wins All-NBA 1st Team if he's healthy.

[HoopsNY]

Obvious hyperbole but the fact they made all stars teams is evidence enough Jordan played in a weaker era. Who do they displace on the all star team today?

What are you talking about? Sikma's last all-star team selection was in 1986 and Trupicka's was 1984, a year before Jordan even entered the league.

[RogueBorg]

Obvious hyperbole but the fact they made all stars teams is evidence enough Jordan played in a weaker era. Who do they displace on the all star team today?

NBA history is replete with players who made an occasional All-Star game. Wally Szczerbiak and Ilgauskas made an All-Star game or two in their careers. Are we to conclude they played in a weak era?

Dumb argument on your part.

[expansionera]

What are you talking about? Sikma's last all-star team selection was in 1986 and Trupicka's was 1984, a year before Jordan even entered the league.

Mookie Blaylock, AC Green, Tyrone Hill, BJ Armstrong, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling etc etc etc none of these guys even get minutes on contending NBA teams. Considered amongst the best players in the 90s (all all stars somehow)

How does the FACT Jordan entered a league where guys like Sikma and Kelly can be all stars mitigate the fact he played in the weakest era in NBA history?

[expansionera]

NBA history is replete with players who made an occasional All-Star game. Wally Szczerbiak and Ilgauskas made an All-Star game or two in their careers. Are we to conclude they played in a weak era?

Dumb argument on your part.
Those guys would be perennial all stars in Jordan’s era, just like the lower echelon of all stars in today’s game (Zach Lavine, Trae Young, Goran Dragic) would be legitimate superstars back then with no double teams or zone defense

[Hey Yo]

How so? A 33 year old Bird was putting up 24/10/8/1/1 on 47/33/93 splits. This was post-injury. If Bird isn't dealing with that, what's he doing then? 26/11/8/2/2 on 50/40/93? Bird was All-NBA 2nd Team in 1990. He probably wins All-NBA 1st Team if he's healthy.

He'd be the first to tell you he was past his prime at that time. He may have played well but did decide to retire 2yrs later.

Hell, MJ at age 35 was 1st team on both ends of the floor plus FMVP. No one would say he was still in his prime based on his accolades that year.

[RogueBorg]

Jordan’s weak era.

3 out of the top 5 players by position came from Jordan's era, Kareem, Magic and MJ. There are 6 centers from the same era that are better than any center of the last 15 years. Regarding centers, the last 10 years have been the weakest era ever for that position. If Gobert had played in the 80's and 90's he would have zero DPOY awards.

And speaking of expansion, are the bottom feeder teams of today better than the expansion teams of the 90's? The 2021 Houston Rockets won 17 games, the Pistons won 20, the Magic won 21, the Cavs won 22, Minnesota won 23.

In 1988-'89, Orlando won 18, Charlotte won 19, and Minnesota won 22. That's all better than this years Rockets.
In 1995-'96, the Toronto Raptors won 21 games, that's better than or equal to 3 teams win total from this past season.

So stop acting like expansion makes things easier for the top teams or that the current NBA doesn't have its fair share of scrub teams. There's always been and always will be bad teams in the league.

[RogueBorg]

Mookie Blaylock, AC Green, Tyrone Hill, BJ Armstrong, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling etc etc etc none of these guys even get minutes on contending NBA teams. Considered amongst the best players in the 90s (all all stars somehow)


None of the guys you mentioned were considered amongst the best players of the 90's. You're showing how little you know.

[expansionera]

3 out of the top 5 players by position came from Jordan's era, Kareem, Magic and MJ. There are 6 centers from the same era that are better than any center of the last 15 years. Regarding centers, the last 10 years have been the weakest era ever for that position. If Gobert had played in the 80's and 90's he would have zero DPOY awards.

And speaking of expansion, are the bottom feeder teams of today better than the expansion teams of the 90's? The 2021 Houston Rockets won 17 games, the Pistons won 20, the Magic won 21, the Cavs won 22, Minnesota won 23.

In 1988-'89, Orlando won 18, Charlotte won 19, and Minnesota won 22. That's all better than this years Rockets.
In 1995-'96, the Toronto Raptors won 21 games, that's better than or equal to 3 teams win total from this past season.

So stop acting like expansion makes things easier for the top teams or that the current NBA doesn't have its fair share of scrub teams. There's always been and always will be bad teams in the league.

Lebron, Curry, KD, Luka, Harden, Giannis, Dirk, Garnett, Wade, Duncan are all INARGUABLY top 5 at their respective positions and contemporaries of Lebron James. Not to mention Lebron actually competed against many more of these players in the playoffs than Jordan who never faced Kareem in the post season.

The expansion teams are the reason Jordan never faced more than one (healthy) NBA superstar in a Finals, he was the sole player to field two All NBA Hall of Fame players on his roster during the era. Instead the league was diluted, whereas today NBA teams have as many as three or four hall of fame level players (Heat, Spurs, Warriors, Nets) at any time. Jordan did not play competition, he played with his greatest oppositional defensive competitors in Rodman, Pippen, Grant and Harp.

[expansionera]

None of the guys you mentioned were considered amongst the best players of the 90's. You're showing how little you know.

All Stars are by definition considered amongst the twenty or so best in their profession in any given year. Show me players today with a combination of as little athleticism, skill and career accomplishments as the aforementioned. You can average 30ppg and make the ECF today and be left out of the All Star game. In Jordan’s era you could just be a role player on a competitive team.

[RogueBorg]

Mookie Blaylock, AC Green, Tyrone Hill, BJ Armstrong, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling etc etc etc none of these guys even get minutes on contending NBA teams. Considered amongst the best players in the 90s (all all stars somehow)

How does the FACT Jordan entered a league where guys like Sikma and Kelly can be all stars mitigate the fact he played in the weakest era in NBA history?

1995-1998 Tom Gugliotta would start at PF on this past year's Phoenix Suns over Jae Crowder.

[expansionera]

1995-1998 Tom Gugliotta would start at PF on this past year's Phoenix Suns over Jae Crowder.

Jae Crowder is better than any (healthy) small forward Jordan ever played against in the Finals. Think about that

[RogueBorg]

Jae Crowder is better than any (healthy) small forward Jordan ever played against in the Finals. Think about that

Nice deflection. What does that have to do with Crowder sitting the bench behind 1990's Tom Gugliotta? You're the one making the statement that 90's players wouldn't start on a championship caliber team.

[expansionera]

Nice deflection. What does that have to do with Crowder sitting the bench behind 1990's Tom Gugliotta? You're the one making the statement that 90's players wouldn't start on a championship caliber team.

Jae Crowder is better than Gugliotta, you give up a marginal scoring advantage (and lose spacing) but downgrade in such magnitude on defense that it’s questionable as to whether the Suns would make the playoffs starting him in the front court.

However if you place Jae Crowder on the Seattle SuperSonics Jordan, having never encountered anyone who can move laterally, never threepeats.

[RogueBorg]

Jae Crowder is better than Gugliotta

LOL no he's not. He can't rebound and he can't pass LOL but ok.

[expansionera]

LOL no he's not. He can't rebound and he can't pass LOL but ok.

Crowder can defend four positions at a high level and hit outside shots consistently, both are more valuable when players can actually play team defense. Show me a valuable post player that is poor defensively and does not shoot the basketball today, Enes Kanter?

[RogueBorg]

Crowder can defend four positions at a high level and hit outside shots consistently, both are more valuable when players can actually play team defense. Show me a valuable post player that is poor defensively and does not shoot the basketball today, Enes Kanter?

Based on what? Gugliotta has a better Drtg (105-107), Gugliotta has better DWS (Gulgiotta's peak is 4.2 to Crowder's 3.5), they have equal DPBM, Gugliotta has a better BPM (.6 to .2) and Gugliotta has a better VORP (15.3 to 9.3).

Add to the fact that Gugliotta was a better scorer, rebounder, and passer.

[expansionera]

Based on what? Gugliotta has a better Drtg (105-107), Gugliotta has better DWS (Gulgiotta's peak is 4.2 to Crowder's 3.5), they have equal DPBM, Gugliotta has a better BPM (.6 to .2) and Gugliotta has a better VORP (15.3 to 9.3).

Add to the fact that Gugliotta was a better scorer, rebounder, and passer.
Larry Bird defensive rating: 101.44
Scottie Pippen defensive rating: 101.51
Paul George defensive rating: 102.92

But what you really don’t want to hear
Career VORP rating
Lebron - 137
Jordan - 116
Stockton - 106
Kareem - 85

Cherry picked advanced stats are meaningless without context. Crowder’s defensive impact is superior to Gugliotta’s interior scoring, Crowder leads both in APG per 100 possessions and per 36 but played fewer minutes than Gugliotta and has much less usage.

[DoctorP]

Jae Crowder is better than Gugliotta, you give up a marginal scoring advantage (and lose spacing) but downgrade in such magnitude on defense that it’s questionable as to whether the Suns would make the playoffs starting him in the front court.

However if you place Jae Crowder on the Seattle SuperSonics Jordan, having never encountered anyone who can move laterally, never threepeats.

:lol not even by a mile. Gugliotta would embarrass Crowder

[expansionera]

:lol not even by a mile. Gugliotta would embarrass Crowder

Boomers still think basketball is played one on one in the post. Gugliotta is Jahlil Okafor with inferior footwork. Jae Crowder would be better than Rick Fox, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Byron Russell or any other star wing defender of Jordan’s era.

[NBAGOAT]

Boomers still think basketball is played one on one in the post. Gugliotta is Jahlil Okafor with inferior footwork. Jae Crowder would be better than Rick Fox, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Byron Russell or any other star wing defender of Jordan’s era.

I was with you about post scorers being overvalued but no crowder isn’t clearly better than all those wings. He was very good last year but he’s a streaky shooter who has multiple years under 35% from 3 so we’ll see how good offensively he is next year. He’s also just a good defender Bowen and Christie were all-defense guys

[expansionera]

I was with you about post scorers being overvalued but no crowder isn’t clearly better than all those wings. He was very good last year but he’s a streaky shooter who has multiple years under 35% from 3 so we’ll see how good offensively he is next year. He’s also just a good defender Bowen and Christie were all-defense guys

Being all defense required less overall skill and athleticism during the illegal defensive era. Look at the media electing Jordan DPOY for crepes sake

[HoopsNY]

Mookie Blaylock, AC Green, Tyrone Hill, BJ Armstrong, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling etc etc etc none of these guys even get minutes on contending NBA teams. Considered amongst the best players in the 90s (all all stars somehow)

How does the FACT Jordan entered a league where guys like Sikma and Kelly can be all stars mitigate the fact he played in the weakest era in NBA history?

Guys like Armstrong and Gatling were replacement all-stars. Tyrone Hill was a defensive forward who was putting up 14/11 when he got the nod, and he was an excellent defensive player as was AC Green.

I'm not sure what the beef here is. You have these kinds of selections all the time. This is really rich coming from a fan of an era that saw guys like Jeff Teague, Kyle Korver, and Al Horford seeing all-star selections. Then there was Mike Conley just last year - a replacement of a replacement, and selecting guys like Dirk at the age of 40 just cause.

Blaylock was a great PG and would be an all-star in this era. He was a legit 17-18 point threat who could dish 10 assists and be one of the best defensive guards in the league.

But when you have borderline all-stars making in the very era that you champion, your take just comes off as disingenuous.

[HoopsNY]

He'd be the first to tell you he was past his prime at that time. He may have played well but did decide to retire 2yrs later.

Hell, MJ at age 35 was 1st team on both ends of the floor plus FMVP. No one would say he was still in his prime based on his accolades that year.

You're right, but Jordan's career wasn't derailed by significant injuries. Bird's was and it proved detrimental to his career. My point is that without those unfortunate circumstances, he's probably playing on a much higher level.

[HoopsNY]

All Stars are by definition considered amongst the twenty or so best in their profession in any given year. Show me players today with a combination of as little athleticism, skill and career accomplishments as the aforementioned. You can average 30ppg and make the ECF today and be left out of the All Star game. In Jordan’s era you could just be a role player on a competitive team.

You mean like Horford, Korver, and Teague? Or how about Mike Conley? Give me a break man.

Purvis Short averaged damn near 30 in 1985 and never made an all-star team. You're really reaching. The fact remains is that it's about probabilities. Obviously with 7 more teams than what existed when MJ first entered the league, you will have more players who can have all-star like seasons but don't make the all-star team.

Rod Strickland was All-NBA 2nd Team in 1998 putting up 18/5/11/2 and didn't make the all-star team. In fact, between 1994-99, he was an 18/5/10/2 player on 46% but never made an all-star team. Do you see anyone else complaining?

[HoopsNY]

Jae Crowder is better than any (healthy) small forward Jordan ever played against in the Finals. Think about that

Nonsense, Crowder isn't better than Schrempf, Dumas, Robinson, or Worthy. Imagine how far this guy is reaching to prove his claim. Unbelievable.

[HoopsNY]

Boomers still think basketball is played one on one in the post. Gugliotta is Jahlil Okafor with inferior footwork. Jae Crowder would be better than Rick Fox, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Byron Russell or any other star wing defender of Jordan’s era.

lmao okay buddy; keep dreaming. Crowder is ass and you know it. Next we'll here these 18 year olds claim that LeBron's Heat were garbage too.

[WiltO'Neal]

Is there any consensus among "experts" on these kinds of questions?

[HoopsNY]

Is there any consensus among "experts" on these kinds of questions?

I don't think so. It's all subjective, but some takes are pretty outlandish like expansionera's. I mean, he thinks Jae Crowder > Worthy, Robinson, or Schrempf for crying out loud.

[DoctorP]

Boomers still think basketball is played one on one in the post. Gugliotta is Jahlil Okafor with inferior footwork. Jae Crowder would be better than Rick Fox, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Byron Russell or any other star wing defender of Jordan’s era.

Can you back this up with some numbers?

[TheMan]

Nonsense, Crowder isn't better than Schrempf, Dumas, Robinson, or Worthy. Imagine how far this guy is reaching to prove his claim. Unbelievable.

expansionera clearly has an agenda and has some really horrible takes, in other words, fits right in here at ISH. :lol

[HoopsNY]

expansionera clearly has an agenda and has some really horrible takes, in other words, fits right in here at ISH. :lol

Big Game James averaged 22/7/4/1/1 on 49%, winning FMVP in a series that featured names like Magic, Dantley, Scott, Isiah, and Joe Dumars; yet this guy thinks Jae Crowder is more elite. Laughable to say the least.

[Ryoka Narusawa]

1 sentence slay.

Parity =/= tougher era at all.



And there was no parity in the 90s. Just 1 superteam like the Warriors and nobody else.

Them's the breaks

[kawhileonard2]

90's was the strongest era. Jordan beat two top 10 players all time in the players in there primes.

Also it was the only era where guys who were top 3 in the league won league and/or finals mvp.

[Vino24]

Isiah Thomas and Bird beat the shit out of MJ

[HoopsNY]

Man this was a really good thread.

[TheGoatest]

The same players Jordan extremist alts use to show how 90s was a strong era are the same players who couldn't beat a team whose #2 scorer in the playoffs averaged 13.8 on .376 shooting. Let that sink in. :oldlol:

[Axe]

The same players Jordan extremist alts use to show how 90s was a strong era are the same players who couldn't beat a team whose #2 scorer in the playoffs averaged 13.8 on .376 shooting. Let that sink in. :oldlol:
Meltdown