The NBA is AT LEAST 25% stronger today than in the 90s

[AussieSteve]

Objectively.

There are ~120 international players on nba rosters now. There were ~20 in the mid-90s.

That means that there were 100 US players on NBA rosters in the 90s that wouldn't be today. About a quarter of the league.

This means that a quarter of the guys guarding MJ wouldn't even make the league today because their roster spots would be taken by better international players.

The increased competition is manifest when you look at the fact the Giannis, Embiid, Doncic and Jokic are arguably the 4 best players in the league today and all are international.

In a GOAT debate, this increased competition must be factored.

[BigShotBob]

So in 1990 would Luka average 34 ppg half way through the season?

Yes or no answer please

[AussieSteve]

So in 1990 would Luka average 34 ppg half way through the season?

Yes or no answer please

Probably not.

Don't see how that's relevant to the point though

[BigShotBob]

Probably not.

Don't see how that's relevant to the point though

So how is the NBA stronger today if their performance is based on playing in an infinitely easier league to score in?

[j3lademaster]

It's not that simple. You also have to take into consideration that with an increased talent pool and more advanced strategy, it also creates an easier time for superstars to put up big numbers. Jordan also didn't have the luxury of playing 3 or 4 shooters at a time either. Nor did he have the opportunity to pad his rebounding in this era. How? Because small ball is more prevalent than ever(less true bigs to contend with) and with the increase in 3 point attempts, it also increases the opportunity for long rebounds. Yes, Westbrook is probably the goat rebounding guard, but there are other factors to it. He wouldn't be getting those gaudy 3 steal seasons though, either, since it's harder to play defense now.

But all in all, yes the NBA has gotten better. Everything in sports that can be objectively measured(sprinting, swimming, pitching speeds, etc) get better over time, it's crazy to think basketball is some weird exception.

[1987_Lakers]

So how is the NBA stronger today if their performance is based on playing in an infinitely easier league to score in?

I remember growing up and pretty much every NBA fan from the 00's thought the NBA in the 80's was stronger than the 90's, the reason why I bring this up is because it was easier to score in the 80's.

What really watered down the 90's was the expansion teams they added, league went from 23 teams in 1988, to 29 teams in 1996, the talent pool couldn't keep up with the added teams and as a result made teams weaker. You had a bunch of teams with one All-NBA guy with role players competing for chips.

The NBA has only added one team since 1996 and the talent pool is much greater than it was back then.

[BigShotBob]

It's not that simple. You also have to take into consideration that with an increased talent pool and more advanced strategy, it also creates an easier time for superstars to put up big numbers. Jordan also didn't have the luxury of playing 3 or 4 shooters at a time either. Nor did he have the opportunity to pad his rebounding in this era. How? Because small ball is more prevalent than ever(less true bigs to contend with) and with the increase in 3 point attempts, it also increases the opportunity for long rebounds. Yes, Westbrook is probably the goat rebounding guard, but there are other factors to it. He wouldn't be getting those gaudy 3 steal seasons though, either, since it's harder to play defense now.

But all in all, yes the NBA has gotten better. Everything in sports that can be objectively measured(sprinting, swimming, pitching speeds, etc) get better over time, it's crazy to think basketball is some weird exception.

Basketball is a finesse sport. That's why QB's haven't gotten any measurably better than the past greats. The NFL have just made it easier for them.


I remember growing up and pretty much every NBA fan from the 00's thought the NBA in the 80's was stronger than the 90's, the reason why I bring this up is because it was easier to score in the 80's.

What really watered down the 90's was the expansion teams they added, league went from 23 teams in 1988, to 29 teams in 1996, the talent pool couldn't keep up with the added teams and as a result made teams weaker.

The NBA has only added one team since 1996 and the talent pool is much greater than it was back then.

You would have a point if the Hornets, Heat, and Magic weren't all playoff caliber teams with one being a legitimate Finals contender. So there was definitely enough talent to go around.

Right now there are 12 teams below .500

In 1996 there were 13 at the end of the season

Nothing has changed

[ShawkFactory]

So how is the NBA stronger today if their performance is based on playing in an infinitely easier league to score in?

Because there are more great players due to the internationalization of things. As he said.

If you give these guys 90s rules and make it harder to score it's still the same.

[BigShotBob]

Because there are more great players due to the internationalization of things. As he said.

If you give these guys 90s rules and make it harder to score it's still the same.

How are they great players if they're in a score friendly era with inflated numbers?

Is Embiid averaging 30 points in 1990? Is he in the MVP race and outperforming prime Hakeem, who averaged 24/14 with 4 blocks and finished 7th?

How about Giannis? Is he averaging 31/14/5 in 1990? Is he over Hakeem and David Robinson?

It wouldn't be the same, that's what every fan knows.

[1987_Lakers]

Nothing has changed

The international talent is 100x better, idk how you can deny that.

[Spurs m8]

None of what you wrote is relevant, because the D is watered down and so is the game style.

Today's league is absolute trash, MJ would average 50...its not even real sport.

Cool thread though

[dirkdiggler41]

You should also add the money. There is so much money in the sport now just making the league can set you up for life if you know how to handle money. Getting drafted as nr. 30 gives you 4mill guaranteed money.

[1987_Lakers]

Is Embiid averaging 30 points in 1990? Is he in the MVP race and outperforming prime Hakeem, who averaged 24/14 with 4 blocks and finished 7th?

Idk about Hakeem, but current Embiid is better than Patrick Ewing. Ewing didn't have Embiid's scoring skills. Hell Embiid is also better than '91 & '92 Hakeem, which were down years for him.

As far as offensive skill, Jokic has all the 90's centers beat.

[BigShotBob]

The international talent is 100x better, idk how you can deny that.

Giannis is better than Kukoc and Embiid is better than Sabonis and Luka is better than Drazen Petrovic but Luka in 1990 isn't the Luka as we know and neither is Giannis or Embiid.

Put Kenny Smith in 2023 and he's an All-Star or All-Star caliber especially if Jalen Brunson is on that level

[ShawkFactory]

How are they great players if they're in a score friendly era with inflated numbers?

Is Embiid averaging 30 points in 1990? Is he in the MVP race and outperforming prime Hakeem, who averaged 24/14 with 4 blocks and finished 7th?

How about Giannis? Is he averaging 31/14/5 in 1990? Is he over Hakeem and David Robinson?

It wouldn't be the same, that's what every fan knows.

Are you listening to yourself?

The numbers would not be the same in the 90s. Nothing would change otherwise. There are still more great players now than there were.

Maybe Giannis turns into 26/14/4 as a DOPY level guy. Still elite. Everyone isn't better now than then. It's just a depth thing.

[1987_Lakers]

Giannis is better than Kukoc and Embiid is better than Sabonis and Luka is better than Drazen Petrovic but Luka in 1990 isn't the Luka as we know and neither is Giannis or Embiid.

Put Kenny Smith in 2023 and he's an All-Star or All-Star caliber especially if Jalen Brunson is on that level

Yes, I'm sure Magic & Bird wouldn't be MVP level players as well if they played in 1996. :lol

[BigShotBob]

Idk about Hakeem, but current Embiid is better than Patrick Ewing. Ewing didn't have Embiid's scoring skills. Hell Embiid is also better than '91 & '92 Hakeem, which were down years for him.

As far as offensive skill, Jokic has all the 90's centers beat.

Ewing was very skilled I think you are mistaken the only thing Embiid has over Ewing is that he takes more ill advised threes and he dribbles more out of the triple threat but Ewing's jump shot was pure especially when he got going and he had the fade and the post hook (a better post hook than Embiid in fact).

Hakeem was coming off injuries in 1991 iirc, but he was still otherworldly with skills

Jokic is a better passer but he's not a dominant or explosive scorer. More steady than anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e49Df2vPQEw&t=272s&ab_channel=HouseofHighlights

[BigShotBob]

There aren't "more great players" now. Because they wouldn't be "great" as you know it.

Luka wouldn't be a "great" player in 1993. He'd be good, but not great. The rules wouldn't allow him to be and he's not a defensive presence/force to impact the game and he'd lack spacing. Also no switches so he couldn't tap dance with the ball while being guarded by Zubac at the 3 point line (I've seen this happen more times than you can count).

My point is the players you call great wouldn't be viewed so under different rules. They're "great" now but they wouldn't be back then

[BigShotBob]

Yes, I'm sure Magic & Bird wouldn't be MVP level players as well if they played in 1996.

No player now is on Magic and Bird's level

[ShawkFactory]

So you just think that players from the 90s are implicitly more talented and greater.

[FKAri]

It's worse to watch but the talent level is higher. MJ is still the GOAT when the talent gap is taken into account.

I also have a counter argument. One thing that is rarely mentioned is the drop in US talent level. It's a real thing. Playing sports in general is not as big in America as it used to be. The trap to fall into is to think, "well these fat kids playing video games would never have made it to the league". Sure, but there's a compound effect. Even NBA level talent growing up needs to get checked by middling level players who then need to get checked by lower level players. All in all you run into more encounters on a court that you need to learn from. A smaller kid can learn from older ones. But there's much less of that. A lot of talented guys get a lot less resistance on their way to college. Those crucial early developmental years are lost.

There's also AAU effect that many already talk about but my point is that there is evidence that the American talent level has dropped since the early 90s. A lot of old school pros will talk about how getting challenged on the blacktop led to them adding things to their game when they were extremely young. Ultimately the question is how this decline aligns with the rise of international basketball.

[BigShotBob]

So you just think that players from the 90s are implicitly more talented and greater.

Depends on the players. When people say there's greater players now, they only mention the top flight talent, who still arent' as great as the top flight talent in the 90's.

For instance, is Jaylen Brown definitely better than Mitch Richmond? Why or why not?

[ShawkFactory]

Depends on the players. When people say there's greater players now, they only mention the top flight talent, who still arent' as great as the top flight talent in the 90's.

For instance, is Jaylen Brown definitely better than Mitch Richmond? Why or why not?

No, he isn't. They're similarly good players.

I don't think anyone is seriously putting Jaylen in the top 15 or anything right now though. They have similar status regardless of the numbers.

[BigShotBob]

No, he isn't. They're similarly good players.

I don't think anyone is seriously putting Jaylen in the top 15 or anything right now though. They have similar status regardless of the numbers.

We know skills wise they are, but Jaylen Brown plays in a more offensive friendly era, so his numbers could be inflated. If he played during Mitch Richmond's time it might go down a couple of notches and Mitch Richmond's might go up.

We could do Ja Morant vs Kevin Johnson. Ja Morant lead the league in paint points out of any player. Is he doing that in 1993? If it's harder for him to score the best way that he does, then will he look less impressive? Meanwhile Kevin Johnson's numbers would go up even more since this era suits the way he likes to play even though he already had great numbers with the Suns before Barkley. Is Kevin Johnson a "great" player?

That's what I mean when I ask who these "great" players are now.

[FKAri]

We know skills wise they are, but Jaylen Brown plays in a more offensive friendly era, so his numbers could be inflated. If he played during Mitch Richmond's time it might go down a couple of notches and Mitch Richmond's might go up.

We could do Ja Morant vs Kevin Johnson. Ja Morant lead the league in paint points out of any player. Is he doing that in 1993? If it's harder for him to score the best way that he does, then will he look less impressive? Meanwhile Kevin Johnson's numbers would go up even more since this era suits the way he likes to play even though he already had great numbers with the Suns before Barkley. Is Kevin Johnson a "great" player?

That's what I mean when I ask who these "great" players are now.

A lot of bigs from the past get ****ed in today's era. There were so many shitty bigs back in the day that aren't seeing an NBA floor now. A lot of quick guards from the past would look a lot better in today's era. The reverse is true as well. A lot of modern quick scoring guards would get destroyed in the past. No way a guy like Fred VanVleet is a hot commodity 30 years ago. But Embiid would look amazing in that era.

But this has nothing to do with how good or bad the league is now compared to the past. This is just about rule changes. Different guys would thrive in different ways.

[ShawkFactory]

We know skills wise they are, but Jaylen Brown plays in a more offensive friendly era, so his numbers could be inflated. If he played during Mitch Richmond's time it might go down a couple of notches and Mitch Richmond's might go up.

We could do Ja Morant vs Kevin Johnson. Ja Morant lead the league in paint points out of any player. Is he doing that in 1993? If it's harder for him to score the best way that he does, then will he look less impressive? Meanwhile Kevin Johnson's numbers would go up even more since this era suits the way he likes to play even though he already had great numbers with the Suns before Barkley. Is Kevin Johnson a "great" player?

That's what I mean when I ask who these "great" players are now.

Ja Morant would barely crack a top 10 list now. I personally don't have him there at the moment.

You seem to be really caught up on the numbers and that isn't what I'm talking about.

[HoopsNY]

It's worse to watch but the talent level is higher. MJ is still the GOAT when the talent gap is taken into account.

I also have a counter argument. One thing that is rarely mentioned is the drop in US talent level. It's a real thing. Playing sports in general is not as big in America as it used to be. The trap to fall into is to think, "well these fat kids playing video games would never have made it to the league". Sure, but there's a compound effect. Even NBA level talent growing up needs to get checked by middling level players who then need to get checked by lower level players. All in all you run into more encounters on a court that you need to learn from. A smaller kid can learn from older ones. But there's much less of that. A lot of talented guys get a lot less resistance on their way to college. Those crucial early developmental years are lost.

There's also AAU effect that many already talk about but my point is that there is evidence that the American talent level has dropped since the early 90s. A lot of old school pros will talk about how getting challenged on the blacktop led to them adding things to their game when they were extremely young. Ultimately the question is how this decline aligns with the rise of international basketball.

Good point. A lot of this also is in connection with the league simply moving its style of play to match the international level. So naturally, it makes sense as to why they would source their talent pool from the very brand that they are seeking to imitate.

The talent pool is on the decline in the U.S., which adds to this as you've mentioned. We also can't ignore the falling birth rates in the U.S. While the numbers are not as steep when you factor in totals, you also have to consider the number of anchor babies in the U.S., which can total as much as 10% of the birthed population in any given year.

Birth rates have been cut in half since the 1950s. So I'm sure all of these effects compounded will ultimately affect the game as we know it. In addition, you simply can't ignore the rule changes. Luka is being brought up so we'll stick with him as an example. He literally carries and travels on every other play, if not a majority of his plays. That just wouldn't fly in the 90s.

[HoopsNY]

So you just think that players from the 90s are implicitly more talented and greater.

There are just too many factors that contribute to this discussion. For one, the play of even the older superstars seems odd when comparing them to their prime years. Take Steph for example:

Steph 2015: 24/4/8/2 on 63.8% TS%
Steph 2021: 32/6/6/1 on 65.5% TS%

Steph was MVP in 2015 and 26 years old. Then we have guys like LeBron, KD, Westbrook, and others who have had a serious incline and outpacing themselves, let alone other players from previous eras. KD's TS% this season is 67.3%, that would be a career high for him at the age of 34.

Westbrook from '09-'15 put up 21/5/7/2 on 52.5% TS.
Westbrook from '16-'21 put up 26/10/10/2 on 53.1% TS%.

2023 LeBron's numbers are seemingly similar, if not better, to 2015 LeBron.

I don't think the current versions of any of these guys eclipse their former selves, which is why I find the modern argument of players being more talented to be rather strange.

[NBAGOAT]

There are just too many factors that contribute to this discussion. For one, the play of even the older superstars seems odd when comparing them to their prime years. Take Steph for example:

Steph 2015: 24/4/8/2 on 63.8% TS%
Steph 2021: 32/6/6/1 on 65.5% TS%

Steph was MVP in 2015 and 26 years old. Then we have guys like LeBron, KD, Westbrook, and others who have had a serious incline and outpacing themselves, let alone other players from previous eras. KD's TS% this season is 67.3%, that would be a career high for him at the age of 34.

Westbrook from '09-'15 put up 21/5/7/2 on 52.5% TS.
Westbrook from '16-'21 put up 26/10/10/2 on 53.1% TS%.

2023 LeBron's numbers are seemingly similar, if not better, to 2015 LeBron.

I don't think the current versions of any of these guys eclipse their former selves, which is why I find the modern argument of players being more talented to be rather strange.

shawk didnt bring up numbers once however. a simple discussion is just going through a list of top 20 players and seeing which is better. Really however where the talent level has gone up imo is past the top 100. Even bad teams have many guys who can play. Hornets are 14-36 and 7 guys who would get some playing time on a playoff team. Even deep teams in the 80s and 90s might only go like 7 deep.

Also FKAri is absolutely right about multiple bigs in the 90s not having a place in today's league though yes some guards arent getting much playing time back then. You have to be able to defend as a big right nowwhich includes switching onto guards or be extremely skilled on offense. also an overlooked explanation in this thread is longevity has improved over time with load management, better doctors etc. The talent pool by year possibly hasnt increased, there's just more talent in the nba because older guys arent falling off as fast. You're going have a wider talent pool when even role players are expected to play at a productive lvl until they're like 35 when say in the 90's they're done by the time they're 30.

Edit: also some of your specific examples are a bit cherrypicked. Steph scored 30ppg the very next year. Westbrook absolutely was a different player from 15-17 than he was previously and he got a role change with no durant in 15 and 17. That's something else that changed too, teams really do believe in giving their stars the ball all the time. for a counterexample, the wizards have a "mid 3" now and beal went from 31ppg to 22ppg in 2 years even though he hasnt declined athletically.

[AussieSteve]

So how is the NBA stronger today if their performance is based on playing in an infinitely easier league to score in?

My point is that winning MVPs and other personal accolades, as well as championships, is more competitive now.

Winning 6 chips vs 4, or 5 MVPs vs 4, needs to be viewed in the context of a less competitive league.

Individual stats are a seperate issue

[ShawkFactory]

Yea if the 15th best scorer now is at 26.8 a game and the 15th best player in 1999 is at 22, I think most people are intelligent enough to understand the league differences.

Luka or Embiid scoring 34 a game isn’t what makes them great. They’re just...great basketball players. They’d be great in any era again...regardless of what the numbers are compared to right now.

My stance is that the 7th man on the 8th seed in the West might be better than his counterpart in the 90s.

[AussieSteve]

It's not that simple. You also have to take into consideration that with an increased talent pool and more advanced strategy, it also creates an easier time for superstars to put up big numbers. Jordan also didn't have the luxury of playing 3 or 4 shooters at a time either. Nor did he have the opportunity to pad his rebounding in this era. How? Because small ball is more prevalent than ever(less true bigs to contend with) and with the increase in 3 point attempts, it also increases the opportunity for long rebounds. Yes, Westbrook is probably the goat rebounding guard, but there are other factors to it. He wouldn't be getting those gaudy 3 steal seasons though, either, since it's harder to play defense now.

But all in all, yes the NBA has gotten better. Everything in sports that can be objectively measured(sprinting, swimming, pitching speeds, etc) get better over time, it's crazy to think basketball is some weird exception.

I'm not talking stats. I'm talking accolades and championships. They're harder to get now than in the 90s.

[NBAGOAT]

We know skills wise they are, but Jaylen Brown plays in a more offensive friendly era, so his numbers could be inflated. If he played during Mitch Richmond's time it might go down a couple of notches and Mitch Richmond's might go up.

We could do Ja Morant vs Kevin Johnson. Ja Morant lead the league in paint points out of any player. Is he doing that in 1993? If it's harder for him to score the best way that he does, then will he look less impressive? Meanwhile Kevin Johnson's numbers would go up even more since this era suits the way he likes to play even though he already had great numbers with the Suns before Barkley. Is Kevin Johnson a "great" player?

That's what I mean when I ask who these "great" players are now.

jokic, healthy kawhi, curry, luka, lebron, healthy ad, tatum, embiid, giannis, kd are who i consider truly great right now, superstar lvl. Not many years in the league will you have 10 of those guys. You can take out kawhi or ad too 8 is a lot

[AussieSteve]

None of what you wrote is relevant, because the D is watered down and so is the game style.

Today's league is absolute trash, MJ would average 50...its not even real sport.

Cool thread though

Stats are irrelevant. I agree that LeBron wouldn't be averaging 30ppg in 1996. It's completely beside the point.

The point is that he wouldn't be competing against the likes of Doncic, Jokic, Giannis and Embiid, because international talent like that was far rarer.

[NBAGOAT]

Yea if the 15th best scorer now is at 26.8 a game and the 15th best player in 1999 is at 22, I think most people are intelligent enough to understand the league differences.

Luka or Embiid scoring 34 a game isn’t what makes them great. They’re just...great basketball players. They’d be great in any era again...regardless of what the numbers are compared to right now.

My stance is that the 7th man on the 8th seed in the West might be better than his counterpart in the 90s.

I would agree. To use a few examples I've seen on reddit people ask in multiple threads what's wrong with the raptors and blazers. you would think dame with grant, simons nurkic, hart is one of the more talented lineups hes played with in his career and the raptors have all good players in their starting 5. Those teams do have terrible benches but you compare them to other teams and those lineups dont ensure a playoff team anymore. Only 4 teams this year are actively trying to be bad that's a factor too.

[BigShotBob]

Yea if the 15th best scorer now is at 26.8 a game and the 15th best player in 1999 is at 22, I think most people are intelligent enough to understand the league differences.

Luka or Embiid scoring 34 a game isn’t what makes them great. They’re just...great basketball players. They’d be great in any era again...regardless of what the numbers are compared to right now.

My stance is that the 7th man on the 8th seed in the West might be better than his counterpart in the 90s.

If you're basing it off of the eye test then I don't know what eye test you're referring to that says that Cam Thomas, a guard that plays behind Joe Harris, Royce O'neal, Seth Curry, and Kyrie, is a demonstrably better basketball player than say, John Battle.

Only that one plays in an era with more pace and space and where he can travel a bit more and the other didn't.

[BigShotBob]

Stats are irrelevant. I agree that LeBron wouldn't be averaging 30ppg in 1996. It's completely beside the point.

The point is that he wouldn't be competing against the likes of Doncic, Jokic, Giannis and Embiid, because international talent like that was far rarer.

Instead he'd compete against MJ, Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, Payton, Kemp, Stockton, Drexler, etc

Your point has no leg to stand on

As another poster alluded to. The homegrown talent in the U.S. isn't as good now either. Tatum is what someone would refer to as a superstar now yet if he played in 1993 he'd just be an all-star in the East that is known for playing well from time to time because he wouldn't be getting the nod over MJ year after year.

[ShawkFactory]

If you're basing it off of the eye test then I don't know what eye test you're referring to that says that Cam Thomas, a guard that plays behind Joe Harris, Royce O'neal, Seth Curry, and Kyrie, is a demonstrably better basketball player than say, John Battle.

Only that one plays in an era with more pace and space and where he can travel a bit more and the other didn't.

Ok so your stance IS that because it’s easier to score that people are inherently worse?

I’m not basing it on eye test, just common sense. The best players in the world at any given time will be among the best players in the world at any other time.

Outside of Jordan and maybe a few other truly elites ever, Jokic is as good as anyone. If you think that John Battle is the man and the only thing holding him back is the era then you might need to re-evaluate.

Maybe he scores slightly more now. It won’t change his status. We have dudes scoring 22 a game now that no one gives a fvck about

[AussieSteve]

Instead he'd compete against MJ, Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, Payton, Kemp, Stockton, Drexler, etc

Your point has no leg to stand on

As another poster alluded to. The homegrown talent in the U.S. isn't as good now either. Tatum is what someone would refer to as a superstar now yet if he played in 1993 he'd just be an all-star in the East that is known for playing well from time to time because he wouldn't be getting the nod over MJ year after year.

Are you saying that Steph, Durant, Tatum, Kawhi, Ja, Butler, Lillard, Trae, Booker, Davis, Harden, PG, KAT, Kyrie, etc.etc. aren't the equal of the top US players in the 90s?

I think they are.

Name 10 players better than current Tatum in 1997!

But today you also have all the superstar international players that I've mentioned, who were barely around in the mid-90s. And, like I said, the bottom 100 players in the league have also been bumped by internationals. 25% of Michael Jordan's shots were over guys who would not make the league if international talent then was what is is now. Yes he would still have been the best in the world, but would he have won 6 championships if every other team in the league was 25% better?

[Round Mound]

All i know is that there is no passion in the nba like it was 30 years ago. I watch the nba on ocassions now but its too uninspiring that i get bored easily.

[Spurs m8]

All i know is that there is no passion in the nba like it was 30 years ago. I watch the nba on ocassions now but its too uninspiring that i get bored easily.

This is a great post and I absolutely feel this

[iamgine]

Objectively.

There are ~120 international players on nba rosters now. There were ~20 in the mid-90s.

That means that there were 100 US players on NBA rosters in the 90s that wouldn't be today. About a quarter of the league.

This means that a quarter of the guys guarding MJ wouldn't even make the league today because their roster spots would be taken by better international players.

The increased competition is manifest when you look at the fact the Giannis, Embiid, Doncic and Jokic are arguably the 4 best players in the league today and all are international.

In a GOAT debate, this increased competition must be factored.

Overall yes talent pool is bigger today. Therefore teams are more talented. Even the US players are more talented because the pool is also bigger at the HS/Collegiate level.

But I wonder about the effect of rules vs talents.

So lets say in the 60s. The rules were you cannot dribble fancy at all and there's no 3pt line so there's no point shooting 3s. There's also racism, physicality and no trainers or technologies to help you can recover much faster after a game. A lot of today's player might be much much worse under those condition thus a lot of today's NBA players might not even be selected under those environment. So if a lot of today's players wouldn't even be selected in the 60s, would today's NBA still be called 'stronger'?

[Axe]

When 3ball kept on saying 'mo williams > scottie pippen' bt, this must be one reason behind it.

[Overdrive]

Objectively.

There are ~120 international players on nba rosters now. There were ~20 in the mid-90s.

That means that there were 100 US players on NBA rosters in the 90s that wouldn't be today. About a quarter of the league.

This means that a quarter of the guys guarding MJ wouldn't even make the league today because their roster spots would be taken by better international players.

The increased competition is manifest when you look at the fact the Giannis, Embiid, Doncic and Jokic are arguably the 4 best players in the league today and all are international.

In a GOAT debate, this increased competition must be factored.

Post hoc fallacy. You can't argue that because there are more international players in the NBA the NBA got better. Just from a logical standpoint.

What you can argue with this premise is that either international players got better relatively or US players worse on average. More international players doesn't say anything about the quality of the league in itself.

The NBA definately got better in some aspects it got worse in others, but you guys keep on arguing for the sake of defending your idol. Whoever that is.

[86Celtics]

Post hoc fallacy. You can't argue that because there are more international players in the NBA the NBA got better. Just from a logical standpoint.

What you can argue with this premise is that either international players got better relatively or US players worse on average. More international players doesn't say anything about the quality of the league in itself.

The NBA definately got better in some aspects it got worse in others, but you guys keep on arguing for the sake of defending your idol. Whoever that is.

This. More international players doesn't equate to a higher standard. It just means that the player pool is more diverse.

[BigShotBob]

Ok so your stance IS that because it’s easier to score that people are inherently worse?

I’m not basing it on eye test, just common sense. The best players in the world at any given time will be among the best players in the world at any other time.

Outside of Jordan and maybe a few other truly elites ever, Jokic is as good as anyone. If you think that John Battle is the man and the only thing holding him back is the era then you might need to re-evaluate.

Maybe he scores slightly more now. It won’t change his status. We have dudes scoring 22 a game now that no one gives a fvck about

I'm asking you on what metric of the eye test are you using mainly.

That's debatable.

Jokic is a similar tier to David Robinson to me (maybe). It's not like if he was dropped in the 90's he would be a two time MVP. So what would he be?

Never implied John Battle was anything more than Cam Thomas was. You flat out stated that a player like Cam Thomas (a 6th or 7th man on a playoff bound team) was better than a player like John Battle (a 6th or 7th man on a playoff bound team).

I asked you what your metric was. But this would require you to even know about players you've never seen before which is another hurdle.

[BigShotBob]

Are you saying that Steph, Durant, Tatum, Kawhi, Ja, Butler, Lillard, Trae, Booker, Davis, Harden, PG, KAT, Kyrie, etc.etc. aren't the equal of the top US players in the 90s?

I think they are.

Name 10 players better than current Tatum in 1997!

But today you also have all the superstar international players that I've mentioned, who were barely around in the mid-90s. And, like I said, the bottom 100 players in the league have also been bumped by internationals. 25% of Michael Jordan's shots were over guys who would not make the league if international talent then was what is is now. Yes he would still have been the best in the world, but would he have won 6 championships if every other team in the league was 25% better?

KAT, Booker, Lillard, Butler, Ja, PG, Davis, Harden, Trae and Tatum shouldn't be added to the list. At this point you're just saying names.

Steph, Lebron, KD and Kawhi are the only definitive players that would be dangerous in the 90's. Everyone else is a wild card.

Better than "Current" Tatum at what?

The top players in 1997 were

Karl Malone, MJ, Grant Hill, Shaq, Glen Rice, and Tim Hardaway among others.

Tatum isn't better than the top 4 I listed

[Phoenix]

The NBA is in an odd spot where the talent pool is deeper while the product on the floor is arguably worse.

Someone earlier made an interesting point about the weakening American talent. Once your 30 somethings guys like Lebron/KD/Steph/Kawhi/Harden/Dame types are out, you're gonna be left with a league dominated by Giannis/Joker/Luka/Embiid. Those 4 names are going to be all over the MVP trophy for the next decade. And Wembenyama is on the horizon.

[j3lademaster]

The NBA is in an odd spot where the talent pool is deeper while the product on the floor is arguably worse.
Do you believe that for the playoffs as well? There’s definitely a shift come playoff time with how the games are called. It’s why we see drop offs in performance from the likes of Harden, Steph before KD joined, KD most years, Giannis before he figured it out(despite reg season dominance) etc.

[j3lademaster]

My stance is that the 7th man on the 8th seed in the West might be better than his counterpart in the 90s.it’s hard to say for sure, which is why you said ‘might’. The 90s and 2000s had different strategy, they tried to just throw together the best 15 guys they can get their hands on. The 7th man today is probably a guy who’s 8/10 at 3 point shooting and 7/10 at perimeter defense and a 4.5 overall, while the 7th man in the 90s might be a 5.5 across the board for example. Today’s teambuilding is definitely more sophisticated, the 90s guy might be a better overall player but the modern guy is better for the team by supporting his star player better.

[FKAri]

it’s hard to say for sure, which is why you said ‘might’. The 90s and 2000s had different strategy, they tried to just throw together the best 15 guys they can get their hands on. The 7th man today is probably a guy who’s 8/10 at 3 point shooting and 7/10 at perimeter defense and a 4.5 overall, while the 7th man in the 90s might be a 5.5 across the board for example. Today’s teambuilding is definitely more sophisticated, the 90s guy might be a better overall player but the modern guy is better for the team by supporting his star player better.

I agree with the specialization aspect and team construction strategy. But I would argue that the bench player today is better overall(despite not being as well rounded) than the bench player of the past. I remember a few years ago seeing Jeremy Lamb come off the bench for a mediocre Hornets team(he started some for them too later on) and thinking there's no way this guy would be a bench player in 1990. And there are many instances of this that can be looked at. This is especially true at the 3 position. The modern 3 is a lot better.

The real contention(for reasons I mentioned earlier) is at the elite level. I don't think it's clear cut that the modern elites are better than those of 20-30 years ago(even if it might be true it's hard to prove).

[Phoenix]

Do you believe that for the playoffs as well? There’s definitely a shift come playoff time with how the games are called. It’s why we see drop offs in performance from the likes of Harden, Steph before KD joined, KD most years, Giannis before he figured it out(despite reg season dominance) etc.

The playoffs eliminate certain issues like lack of urgency and load managing, and the refs pocket the whistle a bit more. Doesn't address the spamming of the 3pointer that is simply ingrained in modern strategy, and there is a decided lack of geunine rivalries compared to prior eras.

[HoopsNY]

shawk didnt bring up numbers once however. a simple discussion is just going through a list of top 20 players and seeing which is better. Really however where the talent level has gone up imo is past the top 100. Even bad teams have many guys who can play. Hornets are 14-36 and 7 guys who would get some playing time on a playoff team. Even deep teams in the 80s and 90s might only go like 7 deep.

Yea, I get you. But I think a lot of that is because of how players were used. The floor is more open now and players have more of a free reign. You know very well that during the 80s and early 90s, shooting a three could get you benched. In addition, because there is more load management and limiting player minutes, guys off the bench are getting more opportunities, and are encouraged to shoot more.


Also FKAri is absolutely right about multiple bigs in the 90s not having a place in today's league though yes some guards arent getting much playing time back then. You have to be able to defend as a big right nowwhich includes switching onto guards or be extremely skilled on offense. also an overlooked explanation in this thread is longevity has improved over time with load management, better doctors etc. The talent pool by year possibly hasnt increased, there's just more talent in the nba because older guys arent falling off as fast. You're going have a wider talent pool when even role players are expected to play at a productive lvl until they're like 35 when say in the 90's they're done by the time they're 30.

I agree with most of this. Though I'd argue that bigs have been given the opportunity to evolve and that evolution began a while ago. Guys like Pau and Chris Bosh were not shooters, but developed into them. And we later saw that with M. Gasol, Lopez, Horford, and Ibaka. For that reason, it's perfectly reasonable to think that bigs prior would have continued to evolve with a similar rate, given the way these modern players have evolved.


Edit: also some of your specific examples are a bit cherrypicked. Steph scored 30ppg the very next year. Westbrook absolutely was a different player from 15-17 than he was previously and he got a role change with no durant in 15 and 17. That's something else that changed too, teams really do believe in giving their stars the ball all the time. for a counterexample, the wizards have a "mid 3" now and beal went from 31ppg to 22ppg in 2 years even though he hasnt declined athletically.

My point about Steph was that it was an MVP season, despite not having the glaring numbers. By 2016, the league had taken off with a more free flowing/GSW style of play.

Steph averaged 8.1 3PA in 2015, but 11.2 3PA in 2016, a considerable increase. Heck, Steph even played similar to 2015 in 2014 where he averaged about as many 3PA and points (7.9 3PA/24.0 PPG), but there was an immense difference between the coaching of Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr.

I'm glad you brought up 2015 and 2017 for Westbrook, because there is still a difference there...

2015 Westbrook: 31/8/9 on 53.8% TS% (4.8 3PA), (40 games w/o KD)
2017 Westbrook: 32/11/10 on 55.4% TS% (7.2 3PA)

I think Westbrook's increase, even if slightly, has more to do with the evolution of the game than merely his talent. I mean, he's still putting up triple double like numbers given the playing time, but that says more to the style of play of the game than to his actual ability IMO.

[HoopsNY]

Yea if the 15th best scorer now is at 26.8 a game and the 15th best player in 1999 is at 22, I think most people are intelligent enough to understand the league differences.

Luka or Embiid scoring 34 a game isn’t what makes them great. They’re just...great basketball players. They’d be great in any era again...regardless of what the numbers are compared to right now.

My stance is that the 7th man on the 8th seed in the West might be better than his counterpart in the 90s.

I don't think we even need to go that far back. In 2012, there were only 4 players that scored over 25 PPG. In 2023, you have 16 players (Markkanen at 24.9 PPG).

There's a big difference even as far back as 2010-2014.

[Phoenix]

I agree with most of this. Though I'd argue that bigs have been given the opportunity to evolve and that evolution began a while ago. Guys like Pau and Chris Bosh were not shooters, but developed into them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-0i4JwQudU

Ewing was popping 18 footers 30 years ago. You can reasonably extrapolate that he's extend that range today. Mcadoo as well, off the top of my head...

[j3lademaster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-0i4JwQudU

Ewing was popping 18 footers 30 years ago. You can reasonably extrapolate that he's extend that range today. Mcadoo as well, off the top of my head...David Robinson and Hakeem both had reliable jumpers as well, and handles that were underrated because bigs back then couldn't really showcase it. I have no doubt both of them have the defensive versatility that doesn't get exploited in the playoffs compared to a Rudy Gobert for example. Zero doubt these guys will adapt and dominate. The water doesn't start to muddy until we get to the likes of a Rony Seikaly.

[1987_Lakers]

The top players in 1997 were

Karl Malone, MJ, Grant Hill, Shaq, Glen Rice, and Tim Hardaway among others.

Tatum isn't better than the top 4 I listed

Glen Rice? lol

[j3lademaster]

Glen Rice? lol

This part is important for full context.


KAT, Booker, Lillard, Butler, Ja, PG, Davis, Harden, Trae and Tatum shouldn't be added to the list. At this point you're just saying names.

But he did say top 4, so he left out Rice and Tim Hardaway. At the same time though, it's weird to list Timmy and Glen Rice and call Ja, Lillard, AD, Harden(if we're talking career and not just right now) and Tatum 'just names'.

[ShawkFactory]

KAT, Booker, Lillard, Butler, Ja, PG, Davis, Harden, Trae and Tatum shouldn't be added to the list. At this point you're just saying names.

Steph, Lebron, KD and Kawhi are the only definitive players that would be dangerous in the 90's. Everyone else is a wild card.

Better than "Current" Tatum at what?

The top players in 1997 were

Karl Malone, MJ, Grant Hill, Shaq, Glen Rice, and Tim Hardaway among others.

Tatum isn't better than the top 4 I listed

Tatum isn’t better than the top 4 now. There are 6 guys with a solid to very solid case over Tatum.

[ShawkFactory]

I'm asking you on what metric of the eye test are you using mainly.

That's debatable.

Jokic is a similar tier to David Robinson to me (maybe). It's not like if he was dropped in the 90's he would be a two time MVP. So what would he be?

Never implied John Battle was anything more than Cam Thomas was. You flat out stated that a player like Cam Thomas (a 6th or 7th man on a playoff bound team) was better than a player like John Battle (a 6th or 7th man on a playoff bound team).

I asked you what your metric was. But this would require you to even know about players you've never seen before which is another hurdle.

Again, it’s not really about eye test either. If more people are playing a sport than in a given time, then it makes sense that the depth of talent would be greater. Unless you think that players are less talented now. They may not be as good at the game exactly as it was played in the 90s because..they haven’t played that game.

[ArbitraryWater]

At least.

Every single team has at least 2 all-star level players nowadays.

[Hey Yo]

No player now is on Magic and Bird's level

Youre probably right. Doubt there's a single player in the league that can't play defense while having no jumpshot like Magic.

[Baller789]

Youre probably right. Doubt there's a single player in the league that can't play defense while having no jumpshot like Magic.

LEBRON JAMES!

:oldlol:

[Soundwave]

The thing is those 90s era Bulls would also be better in today's "Lets jump ship and superteam!" era. Also the luxury tax always teams to go way over the cap which you couldn't really do in the same way in the 90s.

Probably one of LeBron or Durant would go and run and join the Bulls.

Play with Kyrie Irving or Michael Jordan? Hmmm ... not exactly a tough decision.

You'd also have also lower level role players wanted to jump onto that team, so they'd be deeper.

That just wasn't the thinking of players in the 90s, in fact it was the opposite (not saying this is any better) but you had guys like T-Mac leaving good teams (like Toronto with Vince Carter) because they were jealous of sharing the spotlight, nowadays that has completely swung the other way.

Who would beat this team in today's era?

C - Longley (who cares)
PF - Rodman
SF - Pippen
SG - Jordan
PG - LeBron

or

C - Longley
PF - Rodman
SF - Durant
SG - Jordan
PG - Pippen

No****ingbody.

[Lebron23]

The thing is those 90s era Bulls would also be better in today's "Lets jump ship and superteam!" era. Also the luxury tax always teams to go way over the cap which you couldn't really do in the same way in the 90s.

Probably one of LeBron or Durant would go and run and join the Bulls.

Play with Kyrie Irving or Michael Jordan? Hmmm ... not exactly a tough decision.

You'd also have also lower level role players wanted to jump onto that team, so they'd be deeper.

That just wasn't the thinking of players in the 90s, in fact it was the opposite (not saying this is any better) but you had guys like T-Mac leaving good teams (like Toronto with Vince Carter) because they were jealous of sharing the spotlight, nowadays that has completely swung the other way.

Who would beat this team in today's era?

C - Longley (who cares)
PF - Rodman
SF - Pippen
SG - Jordan
PG - LeBron

or

C - Longley
PF - Rodman
SF - Durant
SG - Jordan
PG - Pippen

No****ingbody.

As you became older you became a much terrible poster. I still remembered when you were rooting for LeBron before he won an NBA Championship in 2012. Deep inside your huge head you knew LeBron beat better and superior team than Jordan in the NBA Finals.

[Soundwave]

As you became older you became a much terrible poster. I still remembered when you were rooting for LeBron before he won an NBA Championship in 2012. Deep inside your huge head you knew LeBron beat better and superior team than Jordan in the NBA Finals.

I mean I called LeBron to Miami on this board probably before anyone, I saw that coming.

But I don't really see what that has to do with the point of the post.

In the modern era, a team like the 90s Bulls would probably be better. For one they could spend a shit-ton above the salary cap via luxury tax to add players being in a huge market like Chicago and generated huge revenue like they would.

In the modern era it's more acceptable for good players to go join up with other star studded situations, so sure in the modern era I could very easily see a LeBron or Durant just straight up joining the Bulls.

I mean play for Brooklyn and Kyrie or Chicago and Jordan? Go join a washed up Lakers squad with Kuzma and Lonzo Ball or join the Bulls with Jordan and Rodman and Pippen? That's an easy choice IMO.

Not to mention all the decent players you can get these days with things like the MLE, cap dumps, etc. etc. etc.

The Bulls of the 90s (especially the 2nd 3-peat) were never that stacked, if they had one more scoring options they'd have been considerably better as a team since Pippen's offence and Kukoc's as well could often disappear. In today's game a team like Chicago would probably have a 3rd reliable scoring option at least at all times if not flat out another star player.

It's a lot easier today to stack your roster IMO, the 90s was the toughest time because the cap was more restrictive and players being more active in free agency to join other good teams was more taboo.

[Phoenix]

In this era the 90s Bulls would have probably had Grant and Rodman playing the 5. Cartwright and Longley would be of no use.

[Overdrive]

In this era the 90s Bulls would have probably had Grant and Rodman playing the 5. Cartwright and Longley would be of no use.

Yeah in Soundwave's mock either Lebron, Pippen or Durant would slide up to the 4. The Bulls would most likely have a spot up 3pt shooting PG.


I mean I called LeBron to Miami on this board probably before anyone, I saw that coming.

But I don't really see what that has to do with the point of the post.

In the modern era, a team like the 90s Bulls would probably be better. For one they could spend a shit-ton above the salary cap via luxury tax to add players being in a huge market like Chicago and generated huge revenue like they would.

In the modern era it's more acceptable for good players to go join up with other star studded situations, so sure in the modern era I could very easily see a LeBron or Durant just straight up joining the Bulls.

I mean play for Brooklyn and Kyrie or Chicago and Jordan? Go join a washed up Lakers squad with Kuzma and Lonzo Ball or join the Bulls with Jordan and Rodman and Pippen? That's an easy choice IMO.

Not to mention all the decent players you can get these days with things like the MLE, cap dumps, etc. etc. etc.

The Bulls of the 90s (especially the 2nd 3-peat) were never that stacked, if they had one more scoring options they'd have been considerably better as a team since Pippen's offence and Kukoc's as well could often disappear. In today's game a team like Chicago would probably have a 3rd reliable scoring option at least at all times if not flat out another star player.

It's a lot easier today to stack your roster IMO, the 90s was the toughest time because the cap was more restrictive and players being more active in free agency to join other good teams was more taboo.

The guy juat thought you attacked Lebron and the only thing he can do is throw around ad hominems.

[j3lademaster]

I mean I called LeBron to Miami on this board probably before anyone, I saw that coming.

But I don't really see what that has to do with the point of the post.

In the modern era, a team like the 90s Bulls would probably be better. For one they could spend a shit-ton above the salary cap via luxury tax to add players being in a huge market like Chicago and generated huge revenue like they would.

In the modern era it's more acceptable for good players to go join up with other star studded situations, so sure in the modern era I could very easily see a LeBron or Durant just straight up joining the Bulls.

I mean play for Brooklyn and Kyrie or Chicago and Jordan? Go join a washed up Lakers squad with Kuzma and Lonzo Ball or join the Bulls with Jordan and Rodman and Pippen? That's an easy choice IMO.

Not to mention all the decent players you can get these days with things like the MLE, cap dumps, etc. etc. etc.

The Bulls of the 90s (especially the 2nd 3-peat) were never that stacked, if they had one more scoring options they'd have been considerably better as a team since Pippen's offence and Kukoc's as well could often disappear. In today's game a team like Chicago would probably have a 3rd reliable scoring option at least at all times if not flat out another star player.

It's a lot easier today to stack your roster IMO, the 90s was the toughest time because the cap was more restrictive and players being more active in free agency to join other good teams was more taboo.Then you also have to consider Jordan's leadership style. KD's relationship with Golden State started deteriorating because Draymond called him a "bitch", you think he's going to be able to co-exist with MJ?

[Phoenix]

Yeah in Soundwave's mock either Lebron, Pippen or Durant would slide up to the 4. The Bulls would most likely have a spot up 3pt shooting PG.




For the first 3peat they ended that run with BJ, who IIRC correctly led the league in 3point %. I would think they keep the perimeter as BJ/MJ/Pip and get a stretch 4 with pair with Grant. 2nd threepeat, the frontline would probably be Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman.

[Soundwave]

Then you also have to consider Jordan's leadership style. KD's relationship with Golden State started deteriorating because Draymond called him a "bitch", you think he's going to be able to co-exist with MJ?

That stuff is really overblown, if you can play (like KD clearly would be the most talented teammate Jordan ever had), MJ has no problems. See also: the Bulls and Jordan put up with a lot of shit from Rodman, no one cared so long as he came to play on game day. Frankly Jordan wasn't even as abrasive as Kobe could be.

From all accounts when it comes to the strictly basketball part, KD shows up, works hard, and is obviously a tremendous talent that helps you win games. Don't think there'd be any issues there.

Draymond is an idiot who courts confrontation for no good reason and just loves drama for drama sake. You think Jordan would be dumb enough to get himself suspended in an NBA Finals game like Draymond? No chance.

[NBAGOAT]

I mean I called LeBron to Miami on this board probably before anyone, I saw that coming.

But I don't really see what that has to do with the point of the post.

In the modern era, a team like the 90s Bulls would probably be better. For one they could spend a shit-ton above the salary cap via luxury tax to add players being in a huge market like Chicago and generated huge revenue like they would.

In the modern era it's more acceptable for good players to go join up with other star studded situations, so sure in the modern era I could very easily see a LeBron or Durant just straight up joining the Bulls.

I mean play for Brooklyn and Kyrie or Chicago and Jordan? Go join a washed up Lakers squad with Kuzma and Lonzo Ball or join the Bulls with Jordan and Rodman and Pippen? That's an easy choice IMO.

Not to mention all the decent players you can get these days with things like the MLE, cap dumps, etc. etc. etc.

The Bulls of the 90s (especially the 2nd 3-peat) were never that stacked, if they had one more scoring options they'd have been considerably better as a team since Pippen's offence and Kukoc's as well could often disappear. In today's game a team like Chicago would probably have a 3rd reliable scoring option at least at all times if not flat out another star player.

It's a lot easier today to stack your roster IMO, the 90s was the toughest time because the cap was more restrictive and players being more active in free agency to join other good teams was more taboo.

This is partially true but there are also no ten year deals. Pippen would be underpaid during his first 3peat not during the 2nd where he get a max contract. Rodman kukoc Harper would all make decent salaries to fill out the rest. It be hard to add a 3rd max contract to that salary. Even in 1996 when they had lower salaries those 3 each made 10-15% of the salary cap. Combined that adds up over 35% which is more than a max. Combined thats 100% of the salary cap for those 5 guys and we haven’t gone into the bench. Adding a 3rd max guy would incur a luxury tax on the lvl of gs or the clippers.

There are teams who have 3 max players but they don’t spend anything on role players or one of their guys makes more like 25% of the cup. Also this year there is no superteam it’s not that easy to build one.

Every team always has competition when they target a star in a trade and more teams are trying to compete this year. Siakam is the only big trade target right now. If bkn could turn Simmons into siakam or nuggets could turn porter into siakam they would be a superteam but that’s not happening. Too many teams are interested and would make better offers. Siakam likely would prefer being a 2nd option to 3rd too

[Soundwave]

This is partially true but there are also no ten year deals. Pippen would be underpaid during his first 3peat not during the 2nd where he get a max contract. Rodman kukoc Harper would all make decent salaries to fill out the rest. It be hard to add a 3rd max contract to that salary. Even in 1996 when they had lower salaries those 3 each made 10-15% of the salary cap. Combined that adds up over 35% which is more than a max. Combined thats 100% of the salary cap for those 5 guys and we haven’t gone into the bench. Adding a 3rd max guy would incur a luxury tax on the lvl of gs or the clippers.

There are teams who have 3 max players but they don’t spend anything on role players or one of their guys makes more like 25% of the cup. Also this year there is no superteam it’s not that easy to build one.

Every team always has competition when they target a star in a trade and more teams are trying to compete this year. Siakam is the only big trade target right now. If bkn could turn Simmons into siakam or nuggets could turn porter into siakam they would be a superteam but that’s not happening. Too many teams are interested and would make better offers. Siakam likely would prefer being a 2nd option to 3rd too

The thing is those Bulls teams made so much money they could afford to go GS level or Clipper level with the luxury tax if they had to.

Chicago is a massive sports market and even to this day they still sell mountains of Bulls merchandise in every corner of the globe it seems like. I was in Germany a few months ago and saw some random German girl rocking a Bulls hat, I think it's just popular because it's a 90s throwback type of thing.

In the modern game too, Jordan might make even more from endorsements and like he and LeBron for example might take less money.

Also if you're going to make such a huge fuss about Europe having more talent today, well if the Bulls existed today, they too would benefit from that would they not? If they were pioneers in finding players like Kukoc they'd probably be all over a bunch of Euros.

The Bulls even today are have the 5th highest NBA valuation for a franchise and they haven't done shit really for 20+ years, if they had Jordan in the modern NBA that allow would make them probably the no.1 or no.2 most valued team.

Maybe you lose a Kukoc and Harper for cap reasons, but those players are replaceable easily enough. In the modern game to be honest even Rodman might be a "nice to have" but not a necessity. A core of Jordan/LeBron/Pippen or Jordan/Durant/Pippen would dominate the current NBA fairly easily lets be honest. They needed Rodman in the 90s because of the emphasis on bigs and having a presence on the glass, but today it's not really that big of a deal, there is no Shaq or Hakeem to worry about.

[NBAGOAT]

The thing is those Bulls teams made so much money they could afford to go GS level or Clipper level with the luxury tax if they had to.

Chicago is a massive sports market and even to this day they still sell mountains of Bulls merchandise in every corner of the globe it seems like. I was in Germany a few months ago and saw some random German girl rocking a Bulls hat, I think it's just popular because it's a 90s throwback type of thing.

In the modern game too, Jordan might make even more from endorsements and like he and LeBron for example might take less money.

Also if you're going to make such a huge fuss about Europe having more talent today, well if the Bulls existed today, they too would benefit from that would they not? If they were pioneers in finding players like Kukoc they'd probably be all over a bunch of Euros.

The Bulls even today are have the 5th highest NBA valuation for a franchise and they haven't done shit really for 20+ years, if they had Jordan in the modern NBA that allow would make them probably the no.1 or no.2 most valued team.

Maybe you lose a Kukoc and Harper for cap reasons, but those players are replaceable easily enough. In the modern game to be honest even Rodman might be a "nice to have" but not a necessity. A core of Jordan/LeBron/Pippen or Jordan/Durant/Pippen would dominate the current NBA fairly easily lets be honest. They needed Rodman in the 90s because of the emphasis on bigs and having a presence on the glass, but today it's not really that big of a deal, there is no Shaq or Hakeem to worry about.

mj i doubt takes a paycut even with endorsements. Lebron took a paycut once when he formed his 1st team thats it. the 3rd guy you find is not guaranteed to be kd and lebron, they may want to lead their own teams. KD left gs after 3 years for example. The nets and lakers are 2 of the few teams with 3 full max guys and their 3rd guy is simmons and westbrook... rest of their rosters are not good either. Depending on the 3rd guy, you can argue whether or not its even worth building a big 3. Khris middleton say makes 30% of the cap and is paid fairly and is an all star scorer but is he that much of an upgrade over losing both kukoc and harper(and no those guys arent replaceable for cheap)? Also to your last point, you need bigs for jokic/embiid unless you plan on just outscoring those teams. It is a big deal and why say I dont think the clippers can beat denver even with kawhi/george healthy.

[Soundwave]

mj i doubt takes a paycut even with endorsements. Lebron took a paycut once when he formed his 1st team thats it. the 3rd guy you find is not guaranteed to be kd and lebron, they may want to lead their own teams. KD left gs after 3 years for example. The nets and lakers are 2 of the few teams with 3 full max guys and their 3rd guy is simmons and westbrook... rest of their rosters are not good either. Depending on the 3rd guy, you can argue whether or not its even worth building a big 3. Khris middleton say makes 30% of the cap and is paid fairly and is an all star scorer but is he that much of an upgrade over losing both kukoc and harper(and no those guys arent replaceable for cheap)? Also to your last point, you need bigs for jokic/embiid unless you plan on just outscoring those teams. It is a big deal and why say I dont think the clippers can beat denver even with kawhi/george healthy.

The Bulls beat Shaq who is better than Embiid or Jokic (no disrespect to them) especially down low in the paint, so sure they could beat Jokic/Embiid.

The point is in the modern era there's a very good chance a guy like LeBron or Durant would just rather go play with Jordan than play against him. Maybe Durant for example doesn't even go to Golden State the first time and just goes running to Chicago instead. Maybe instead of going back to Cleveland the 2nd time LeBron just says nope and goes to Chicago.

There's just so many more ways for a top end team to load up today between a more active UFA market with star players these days and luxury tax which would allow a team like Chicago to spend a fortune on a roster if they wanted to.

Jordan was underpaid for the majority of his career, that's the only reason he wanted max dollars in the last few years because he had earned it (well more than earned it). I think he would take less if was dying to win in the modern era, the endorsement money he would make today would dwarf his NBA salary either way (I'm pretty sure it did even back then).

[NBAGOAT]

The Bulls beat Shaq who is better than Embiid or Jokic (no disrespect to them) especially down low in the paint, so sure they could beat Jokic/Embiid.

The point is in the modern era there's a very good chance a guy like LeBron or Durant would just rather go play with Jordan than play against him. Maybe Durant for example doesn't even go to Golden State the first time and just goes running to Chicago instead. Maybe instead of going back to Cleveland the 2nd time LeBron just says nope and goes to Chicago.

There's just so many more ways for a top end team to load up today between a more active UFA market with star players these days and luxury tax which would allow a team like Chicago to spend a fortune on a roster if they wanted to.

Jordan was underpaid for the majority of his career, that's the only reason he wanted max dollars in the last few years because he had earned it (well more than earned it). I think he would take less if was dying to win in the modern era, the endorsement money he would make today would dwarf his NBA salary either way (I'm pretty sure it did even back then).

yea i dont doubt the bulls would win, there hasnt been an all time great team since gs. Rodman is a bit more than "nice to have" even in today's league however was my main point about jokic/embiid who are better than shaq on the perimeter where you need rodman's versatility. they beat shaq and the magic but that was with rodman. There are more ways to be loaded but it's much more likely you spend your 3rd max slot on some average all star and lebron/kd could choose another roster to form a superteam too. Also the players union last few years has dissuaded stars from taking significant paycuts, the only one who has recently is harden.