80's vs 90's

I've been messing around on whatifsports and i made a team from the 80's and 90's.

[B]80's[/B]
C - 82-83 Moses Malone
PF - 86-87 Kevin McHale
SF - 85-86 Larry Bird
SG - 87-88 Michael Jordan
PG - 86-87 Magic Johnson
BENCH
84-85 Isiah Thomas
88-89 Clyde Drexler
80-81 Julius Erving
85-86 Dominique Wilkins
79-80 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
88-89 Hakeem Olajuwon
87-88 Charles Barkley

[B]90's[/B]
C - 93-94 Hakeem Olajuwon
PF - 90-91 Karl Malone
SF - 93-94 Scottie Pippen
SG - 90-91 Michael Jordan
PG - 90-91 John Stockton
BENCH
95-96 Gary Payton
91-92 Clyde Drexler
92-93 Charles Barkley
93-94 David Robinson
91-92 Reggie Miller
96-97 Grant Hill
98-99 Shaquille O'Neal

So far i've simulated these two teams against each other 4 times. And all 4 times the 80's won.

Who do you guys think would win?

The 90s is the 2nd most overrated era after the 00s, so I vote for the 80s.

All but three players from your '90 list played in the '80s so that should tell you which era was better and who'd win.

[QUOTE=BrianScalabrine]The 90s is the 2nd most overrated era after the 00s, so I vote for the 80s.[/QUOTE]

How was the '90s overrated?

[QUOTE=ConanRulesNBC]How was the '90s overrated?[/QUOTE]

I can see why people think the 90's were overrated. The early 90's were good but the mid 90's - late 90's were really watterd down.

Late '90s maybe... but the early/mid '90s were great.

[QUOTE=ConanRulesNBC]Late '90s maybe... but the early/mid '90s were great.[/QUOTE]

The '90's were cool until Vancouver and Toronto came in (no intention dis', Raps and Griz fans). You know how it is when the bring in expansion teams....

[QUOTE=ConanRulesNBC]Late '90s maybe... but the early/mid '90s were great.[/QUOTE]

It was actually the mid 90's where the NBA started to sink. MJ wasn't in the NBA in 93-94 & 94-95 then when MJ came back in 95-96 the NBA added 2 new teams to the NBA which lowerd competition a bit.

Well are you going to sim a series or not?

80's.....no contest.

[QUOTE=Korki Buchek]Sorry, the departure of one player can't bring the level of the play down for the entire league, even if it is Michael Jordan. The fact is, the mid 90s is the greatest era for the center position in NBA history, so I don't understand how it can be classified as weak.

[B]And since when does more teams mean a weaker league?[/B] Does that mean that the mid 40s was the strongest era ever because it was the era with the fewest teams in the league?[/QUOTE]

Well, you have more players spread out. Instead of having 3 great players on a team you know might have 2. Just look at the 80's. You had a bunch of great players on one team. As the NBA expanded competition got worse.

lol... I know. I mean you still had very good Rockets, Magic, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics and Bulls teams. How many players that were on the Grizzlies and Raptors could have gone to other teams and all of a sudden make them contenders? It didn't cause the NBA to be weaker at all. In fact... I think the 72-10 Bulls actually lost to the Raptors.

The '90s were awesome.

Oh and I'm going with the '90s.

Prime Jordan who played team basketball paired up with Pippen, Hakeem, Stockton and Malone with Shaq off the bench? Bird and Magic were great but '90s Jordan would have beaten '80s Jordan in a team game, Kareem was passed his prime and going up against Shaq and a prime Hakeem would have been hard. Also that bench for the '90s team is just absolutely sick.

I wouldn't put McHale over Charles Barkley/MosesMalone for the 80s. IMO, Hakeem could have played PF too. He was versatile enough to defend both PFs and Cs in his prime. I personally think McHale was slightly overrated on both ends of the court. :confusedshrug:

For the 90's, you can also do Shaq for C and Hakeem for PF instead of Karl Malone. Malone was a beast but I think a Shaq/Hakeem duo would be basically unstoppable front-court for the 90s.

[QUOTE=ConanRulesNBC]lol... I know. I mean you still had very good Rockets, Magic, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics and Bulls teams. How many players that were on the Grizzlies and Raptors could have gone to other teams and all of a sudden make them contenders? It didn't cause the NBA to be weaker at all. In fact... I think the 72-10 Bulls actually lost to the Raptors.

The '90s were awesome.

[B]Oh and I'm going with the '90s.

Prime Jordan who played team basketball paired up with Pippen, Hakeem, Stockton and Malone with Shaq off the bench? Bird and Magic were great but '90s Jordan would have beaten '80s Jordan in a team game, Kareem was passed his prime and going up against Shaq and a prime Hakeem would have been hard. Also that bench for the '90s team is just absolutely sick.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well you do have MJ and Hakeem for the 80's. And you say Shaq coming off the bench. Well how about Isiah Thomas, Hakeem, MVP '81 Julius Erving and MVP '82 Moses Malone coming off the bench. And this is 1980 Kareem... we are talking about the NBA MVP for that year. Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, and Grant Hill wouldn't even make the roster for the 80's squad if they played in that decade. No doubt the bench is better for the 80's squad.

[QUOTE=Korki Buchek]Okay, will you please tell me what players the 1995-96 Raptors and the 1995-96 Grizzlies took from the other teams in the league to lower the standard of the entire league? The best players the Raptors took from other teams in the NBA were Doug Christie, Tracy Murray and Oliver Miller; and the best players Grizzlies took from other teams were Greg Anthony, Blue Edwards, Benoit Benjamin and a 34 year-old Byron Scott. Not a single one compares to Gerald Wallace that Bobcats got when they entered the league.

So apparently, according to you, the fact that a handful of mediocre players such as these got transferred to two expansion teams somehow made the league less competitive because the players became spread out. Wow.[/QUOTE]

Seriously the NBA was watterd down in 1996 when u compare it to the mid 1980's. Just look at the Cavs for '96. They made the playoffs with a starting 5 of Terrell Brandon / Michael Cage / Danny Ferry / Chris Mills / Bobby Phills.

It wasn't just 2 teams that were added in '96 that watterd down the NBA. In 1988-89 the NBA added 2 teams and another 2 teams in 1989-90. And 2 more in 1995-96. 6 teams were added in the NBA in a span of 8 years. That weakens competition.

[QUOTE=Korki Buchek]Okay, will you please tell me what players the 1995-96 Raptors and the 1995-96 Grizzlies took from the other teams in the league to lower the standard of the entire league? The best players the Raptors took from other teams in the NBA were Doug Christie, Tracy Murray and Oliver Miller; and the best players Grizzlies took from other teams were Greg Anthony, Blue Edwards, Benoit Benjamin and a 34 year-old Byron Scott. Not a single one compares to Gerald Wallace that Bobcats got when they entered the league.

So apparently, according to you, the fact that a handful of mediocre players such as these got transferred to two expansion teams somehow made the league less competitive because the players became spread out. Wow.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Another flaw in the whole argument that the 90s and 00s are watered down compared to other eras is that people don't take into account that as the league expanded, the whole basketball population expanded, Basketball has gotten more popular, meaning more people playing the sport, meaning more competition as a whole. Its gotten so popular that the US hasn't won a gold medal in 8 years.

[QUOTE=guy]:applause: Another flaw in the whole argument that the 90s and 00s are watered down compared to other eras is that people don't take into account that as the league expanded, the whole basketball population expanded, Basketball has gotten more popular, meaning more people playing the sport, meaning more competition as a whole. [B]Its gotten so popular that the US hasn't won a gold medal in 8 years.[/B][/QUOTE]

That should tell you how bad the NBA is now compared to the 80's / 90's.

whatifsports simulation: 80's vs 90's

[B]Game 1[/B]
80's: 126
90's 96
Player of the Game: Kevin McHale

[B]Game 2 [/B]
80's: 110
90's: 102
Player of the Game: Magic Johnson

[B]Game 3[/B]
80's: 115
90's: 108
Player of the Game: Magic Johnson

[B]Game 4 [/B]
80's: 110
90's 111
Player of the Game: Hakeem Olajuwon (90's)

[B]Game 5 [/B]
80's: 107
90's: 95
Player of the Game: Larry Bird

80's win series 4-1

Note: 80's out rebounded the 90's by 10+ during the series.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]whatifsports simulation: 80's vs 90's
Note: 80's out rebounded the 90's by 10+ during the series.[/QUOTE]
Of course they would. Everyone on the '80 besides Zeke has averaged 8 boards or more in a season.

its funny how people always say that the 90s is overrated. i mean, how can it be overrated when the fact is, basketball was at its peak. its also funny when people say that the league was watered down but have no substance for such an argument.

the whole waterd down theory is funny because there was still plenty of talented basketall players playing in the 90s. all teams still had a big three but some were better than others just like the 80s.now, if the 90s had teams like the bulls being put out by teams like the grizzlies i would say that the 90s were overrated. and oh by the way that did happen in the 80s to the mighty lakers. the 80s had very bad teams making the playoffs and beating championship teams. they had a bunch of crack heads playing in the 80s also.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]That should tell you how bad the NBA is now compared to the 80's / 90's.[/QUOTE]

all the 90s dream teams won the gold

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]whatifsports simulation: 80's vs 90's

[B]Game 1[/B]
80's: 126
90's 96
Player of the Game: Kevin McHale

[B]Game 2 [/B]
80's: 110
90's: 102
Player of the Game: Magic Johnson

[B]Game 3[/B]
80's: 115
90's: 108
Player of the Game: Magic Johnson

[B]Game 4 [/B]
80's: 110
90's 111
Player of the Game: Hakeem Olajuwon (90's)

[B]Game 5 [/B]
80's: 107
90's: 95
Player of the Game: Larry Bird

80's win series 4-1

Note: 80's out rebounded the 90's by 10+ during the series.[/QUOTE]

that thing goes strictly by stats and is unrealistic. you should be ashamed for posting this.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]its funny how people always say that the 90s is overrated. i mean, how can it be overrated when the fact is, basketball was at its peak. its also funny when people say that the league was watered down but have no substance for such an argument.

the whole waterd down theory is funny because there was still plenty of talented basketall players playing in the 90s. all teams still had a big three but some were better than others just like the 80s.now, if the 90s had teams like the bulls being put out by teams like the grizzlies i would say that the 90s were overrated. and oh by the way that did happen in the 80s to the mighty lakers.[B] the 80s had very bad teams making the playoffs and beating championship teams.[/B] they had a bunch of crack heads playing in the 80s also.[/QUOTE]

:lol

Maybe the 80's had bad teams making the playoffs because 16 teams made the playoffs when there were only 23 teams in the nba.

Do some reserach before you post.

And most NBA Fans will tell you the NBA was at its best in the 80's. People like you is what's making the 90's overrated.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]That should tell you how bad the NBA is now compared to the 80's / 90's.[/QUOTE]

No that just means the game beyond the US has improved greatly, and also the NBA players don't want to play for the US as much as they did in 92, the first year NBA players were playing. And that was just an example, the popularity hasn't just increased outside of the US. Its also increased greatly in the US, making it more competitive amongst Americans. Combine that with the rise of the international game, and basketball is just more competitive, and it basically correlates with the expansion of the NBA.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]:lol

Maybe the 80's had bad teams making the playoffs because 16 teams made the playoffs when there were only 23 teams in the nba.

Do some reserach before you post.

And most NBA Fans will tell you the NBA was at its best in the 80's. People like you is what's making the 90's overrated.[/QUOTE]

man, i dont care how many teams were in the league. under 500 is under 500 period. and the fact is under 500 teams should not be advancing and beating the so called championship or gretest teams ever.

and YOU NEED TO DO RESEARCH, cuz the fact is that the nba ratings were at its highest in the 90s. which means more people were watching.

[QUOTE=guy]No that just means the game beyond the US has improved greatly, and also the NBA players don't want to play for the US as much as they did in 92, the first year NBA players were playing. And that was just an example, the popularity hasn't just increased outside of the US. Its also increased greatly in the US, making it more competitive amongst Americans. Combine that with the rise of the international game, and basketball is just more competitive, and it basically correlates with the expansion of the NBA.[/QUOTE]

thank you

[QUOTE=97 bulls]man, i dont care how many teams were in the league. under 500 is under 500 period. and the fact is under 500 teams should not be advancing and beating the so called championship or gretest teams ever.

and YOU NEED TO DO RESEARCH, cuz the fact is that the nba ratings were at its highest in the 90s. which means more people were watching.[/QUOTE]

Popularity does not equal quality.

And you are acting like a 500 team beat an NBA Championship contender every year. That only happened once in 1981 when the Rockets beat the Lakers in a [B]3 GAME SERIES[/B] and those '81 lakers were no where near as good as they were in 1984-1989.

The fact is there were better players in the 80's and better teams in the 80's.

'83 Sixers
'86 Celtics
'87 Lakers
'89 Pistons

those 4 teams were named on the 10 greatest teams list in NBA History by the NBA.

It's not even close. 80's > 90's

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Popularity does not equal quality.

And you are acting like a 500 team beat an NBA Championship contender every year. That only happened once in 1981 when the Rockets beat the Lakers in a [B]3 GAME SERIES[/B] and those '81 lakers were no where near as good as they were in 1984-1989.

The fact is there were better players in the 80's and better teams in the 80's.

'83 Sixers
'86 Celtics
'87 Lakers
'89 Pistons

those 4 teams were named on the 10 greatest teams list in NBA History by the NBA.

It's not even close. 80's > 90's[/QUOTE]

all im sayin is that if these 80s were so great how come so many sub 500 teams made it to the playoffs. every year there were anwhere from 1-4 under 500 teams. i just cant say that this is the measuring stick

[QUOTE=97 bulls]all im sayin is that if these 80s were so great how come so many sub 500 teams made it to the playoffs. every year there were anwhere from 1-4 under 500 teams. i just cant say that this is the measuring stick[/QUOTE]

Well naturally with lesser amount of team thats going to happen regardless of the quality of the teams, but I get what you're saying. However, there's no way in today's league that an under .500 team lmake it as far as the NBA Finals like in 81. And I'm not saying the 80s was weak cause it wasn't, I just don't think the 90s or 00s are weaker.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]all im sayin is that if these 80s were so great how come so many sub 500 teams made it to the playoffs. every year there were anwhere from 1-4 under 500 teams. i just cant say that this is the measuring stick[/QUOTE]

I've already answered that. There were 23 teams in the NBA in the 80's and 16 of them made the playoffs ever year. 2/3 of teams made the playoffs each year so of course there will be teams under .500 making the playoffs.

Example... If 2/3 of the NBA made the playoffs in 1996 this is how the playoff picture would look like...

1996 NBA Playoff picture

East:
#1 - Chicago Bulls ...72-10
#2 - Orlando Magic ...60-22
#3 - Indiana Pacers ...52-30
#4 - Cleveland Cavaliers ...47-35
#5 - New York Knicks... 47-35
#6 - Atlanta Hawks... 46-36
#7 - Detroit Pistons... 46-36
#8 - Miami Heat ...42-40
[B]#9 - Charlotte Hornets ...41-41
#10 - Washington Bullets ...39-43 [/B]

West:
#1 - Seattle Supersonics ...64-18
#2 - San Antonio Spurs ...59-23
#3 - Utah Jazz... 55-27
#4 - Los Angeles Lakers ...53-29
#5 - Houston Rockets ...48-34
#6 - Portland Trail Blazers ...44-38
#7 - Phoenix Suns... 41-41
#8 - Sacramento Kings ...39-43
[B]#9 - Golden State Warriors ...36-46
#10 - Denver Nuggets ...35-47 [/B]

You see? If 2/3 of the NBA made the playoffs in 1996 [B]SIX[/B] teams .500 and under would of made the playoffs.

This is why your "if these 80s were so great how come so many sub 500 teams made it to the playoffs" statement is flawed.

The whole "well sub-500" teams made the playoffs in the 80's is a silly one simply because 70% of the teams in the NBA made the playoffs from 1984(the year the NBA expanded the number of teams in the playoffs to 16) ti'll 1988 (When the league expanded to 25 teams). That would be like almost 22 teams making the playoffs now, go see if you don't have more than a couple of loosing records in the playoffs(specially in the East).

Number of teams that made the playoffs with loosing records from 1980 to 1983( when it was only 12 teams making the post-season)= 2.

Number of loosing teams that would've made the playoffs from 1984 ti'll 1988 if they had maintained the 12 team format= only 2!!! That's 4 loosing teams in 8 years!!!.

Now let's look at how many loosing teams you had making the playoffs from 91 ti'll 93' (the only period even comparable to the 1980's because the decline definetely started in 1994)

91'=1
92'=3(all from the East)
93'=1

That's 5 teams right there. Calculating how many it would've been had just 66% of the teams(that's 18 teams) made the playoffs during that time the number jumps to 9 teams!!!! That's unbelievable.

So you can't blame an entire decade for David Stern's error in allowing 16 teams to make the playoffs when the league had only 23 teams. It was beneficial from a business stand point because you had more stars and markets in the playoffs but it meant that a lot of loosing teams got in the playoffs.

Plus the 80's had the Lakers-Celtics/Magic vs Bird rivalry that trumped anything that happened in the 90's. You had the 2 greatest Finals in history in 1984 and 1988, tons of transcendant superstars that revitilized decrepit or struggling markets like:

Chicago-Jordan
Portland-Drexler
Houston-Hakeem
Atlanta-Nique
Detroit-Isiah
Utah-Stockton, Malone
Philly-Barkley
New York-King, Ewing
Denver-English
Dallas-Aguirre, Blackman
Milwaukee-Moncrief, Cummings

Most of these guys transformed their franchises through long tenures with those teams and became icons in those cities which is more than you can say for the "Big Money" generation of players that came in the 90's that were never able to fill the shoes of their 80's counterparts.

The 80' will ALWAYS be the Golden Age.

[QUOTE=Showtime80']The whole "well sub-500" teams made the playoffs in the 80's is a silly one simply because 70% of the teams in the NBA made the playoffs from 1984(the year the NBA expanded the number of teams in the playoffs to 16) ti'll 1988 (When the league expanded to 25 teams). That would be like almost 22 teams making the playoffs now, go see if you don't have more than a couple of loosing records in the playoffs(specially in the East).

Number of teams that made the playoffs with loosing records from 1980 to 1983( when it was only 12 teams making the post-season)= 2.

Number of loosing teams that would've made the playoffs from 1984 ti'll 1988 if they had maintained the 12 team format= only 2!!! That's 4 loosing teams in 8 years!!!.

Now let's look at how many loosing teams you had making the playoffs from 91 ti'll 93' (the only period even comparable to the 1980's because the decline definetely started in 1994)

91'=1
92'=3(all from the East)
93'=1

That's 5 teams right there. Calculating how many it would've been had just 66% of the teams(that's 18 teams) made the playoffs during that time the number jumps to 9 teams!!!! That's unbelievable.

So you can't blame an entire decade for David Stern's error in allowing 16 teams to make the playoffs when the league had only 23 teams. It was beneficial from a business stand point because you had more stars and markets in the playoffs but it meant that a lot of loosing teams got in the playoffs.

Plus the 80's had the Lakers-Celtics/Magic vs Bird rivalry that trumped anything that happened in the 90's. You had the 2 greatest Finals in history in 1984 and 1988, tons of transcendant superstars that revitilized decrepit or struggling markets like:

Chicago-Jordan
Portland-Drexler
Houston-Hakeem
Atlanta-Nique
Detroit-Isiah
Utah-Stockton, Malone
Philly-Barkley
New York-King, Ewing
Denver-English
Dallas-Aguirre, Blackman
Milwaukee-Moncrief, Cummings

Most of these guys transformed their franchises through long tenures with those teams and became icons in those cities which is more than you can say for the "Big Money" generation of players that came in the 90's that were never able to fill the shoes of their 80's counterparts.

The 80' will ALWAYS be the Golden Age.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Guy, a team with only 7 more wins than the 81' Rockets won the title in 95', now that wouldn't have happened in the 1980's! Not to mention the 94' Rockets and 99' Spurs, teams that are generally regarded as some of the worst champions in league history not to mention the last 28 years.

Check out the teams that won in the 80's sometime. All time champions to say the least.

And you really want to talk about the 21st century, with absolutely dreadful teams like the Nets in 02 and 03 and the Cavs in 07 makin the Finals!!! This decade has only had 1 team that you could even put in the same conversation with ANY of the 10 title teams from the 80's and that is the 2001 Lakers, that's it.

I'm trying to sim some games too but every time I click "play game" it just goes to the default error page whether I use IE or Firefox.

Here's a good way to see which decade was really better between the '80s and the '90s. Instead of comparing players that played big parts in both decade (MJ/Dream/Drexler/Chuck ect) compare players who didn't cross between the two ('80s and '90s) decades.


[B]1980s[/B]
Sidney Moncrief
Adrian Dantley
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
George Gervin
Bernard King
Alex English
Dennis Johnson
Bob Lanier
Maurice Cheeks
Ralph Sampson


[B]1990s[/B]
David Robinson
Gary Payton
Dikembe Mutombo
Shaquille O'Neal
Jason Kidd
Grant Hill
Alonzo Mourning
Tim Hardaway
Anfernee Hardaway
Shawn Kemp


[B]Then you have the guys who crossed both decades[/B]
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Isiah Thomas
Dominique Wilkins
Clyde Drexler
Akeem Olajuwon
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
John Stockton
Patrick Ewing
Karl Malone
Scottie Pippen
Kevin Johnson

hmm what a game that would be...

admittedly when you are given the entire decade of the 80s compared to the entire decade of the 90s, the 80s should come out on top simply because the 90s had more weak spots, and the weak spots in the 80s were few and far between. However, I would contend that many of the seasons in the 90s match up with seasons in the 80s. Obviously most of these are from the early 90s. I think that the "Golden Era" of basketball could be defined as anywhere from [B]1983-1993[/B]... to [B]1983-1998[/B].

And the 1993 Finals could be argued as the greatest Finals in history.

[QUOTE=Showtime80']Guy, a team with only 7 more wins than the 81' Rockets won the title in 95', now that wouldn't have happened in the 1980's! Not to mention the 94' Rockets and 99' Spurs, teams that are generally regarded as some of the worst champions in league history not to mention the last 28 years.

Check out the teams that won in the 80's sometime. All time champions to say the least.

And you really want to talk about the 21st century, with absolutely dreadful teams like the Nets in 02 and 03 and the Cavs in 07 makin the Finals!!! This decade has only had 1 team that you could even put in the same conversation with ANY of the 10 title teams from the 80's and that is the 2001 Lakers, that's it.[/QUOTE]

I would say the 95 Rockets winning a title in the 80s is more likely then the 81 Rockets making the Finals in the 90s, but both aren't very likely at all. The 95 Rockets had to deal with chemistry issues, including a mid-season trade for Drexler, and some injuries. Hakeem missed 10 games, in which the Rockets went 3-7, they also missed 9 games from the combination of Drexler and Otis Thorpe, who were traded for each other. Its highly doubtful that the Rockets don't win at least 50 games if they don't miss there 1st and 2nd best players for that many games. And I've never heard of people calling the 94 Rockets and 99 Spurs as some of the worse champions of all time.

And yes I'll agree with the last part. The Nets and Cavs teams that made the finals this decade sucked, but thats mostly because of the lopsided conferences. Maybe in the 00s, the 81 Rockets could've made it to the Finals if they were in the East, but they also probably wouldn't be a sub .500 team, so I would still say a sub .500 team would not ever make it to the Finals in this decade.