80's vs 90's

The 1992 and 97 Finals were better than 93' when the Bulls had series' leads of 2-0 and 3-1 at different stages of those Finals. Only 2 games were remotely interesting and the two main guys and teams liked each other too much for the series to ever get to the intense level of those 80's Finals. Magic was elbowing Isiah in the face by the fourth game of 88' for God's sake.

The 1984 Finals were on another stratosphere. Lakers/Celtics, Magic/Bird, unbelievable supporting casts with Kareem, Worthy, McAdoo, Scott, Wilkes against Parish, DJ, McHale, Maxwell, Ainge etc... No other series in history had as many hof'ers and all-stars near or at their peak. The racial aspect of Black versus White. LA flash versus Boston blue collar attitude. The series went down to the last minute of game 7 in the historic Boston Garden and it brought the NBA into the national spotlight. No series before or since had the same impact.

I remember NBC did a poll of the "greatest Finals ever" a few years ago when they still had the games and the 84' Finals were the undesputed king of the hill with the 69' Finals coming in second.

[QUOTE=Showtime80']The 1992 and 97 Finals were better than 93' when the Bulls had series' leads of 2-0 and 3-1 at different stages of those Finals. Only 2 games were remotely interesting and the two main guys and teams liked each other too much for the series to ever get to the intense level of those 80's Finals. Magic was elbowing Isiah in the face by the fourth game of 88' for God's sake.

The 1984 Finals were on another stratosphere. Lakers/Celtics, Magic/Bird, unbelievable supporting casts with Kareem, Worthy, McAdoo, Scott, Wilkes against Parish, DJ, McHale, Maxwell, Ainge etc... No other series in history had as many hof'ers and all-stars near or at their peak. The racial aspect of Black versus White. LA flash versus Boston blue collar attitude. The series went down to the last minute of game 7 in the historic Boston Garden and it brought the NBA into the national spotlight. No series before or since had the same impact.

I remember NBC did a poll of the "greatest Finals ever" a few years ago when they still had the games and the 84' Finals were the undesputed king of the hill with the 69' Finals coming in second.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Even though the lakers lost... the 1984 NBA Finals were without a doubt the greatest Finals in NBA History. Not only did the series go to 7 games but there were also 2 games that went to OT.

How do you compare eras? I mean really?


I lol everytime some d0uchbag tries to bash this era (2000's) The NBA hasn't been as popular than it is now. You have some of the best basketball players ever right now playing in the league.... and people still hate.:(


All of the best international players come to the NBA all of these kids skipping college because they are talented enough to do so..... I think it is all the older people that grew up during other eras that are the haters. Lot of people are jealous of these multi skilled young men that are tearing it up in the League and making all this money...


I'd put this squad up against any other squad from any other era and I think they could hold their own.

PG - Steve Nash
SG - Kobe
SF - Lebron
PF - Duncan
C - KG

[QUOTE=DOUBLE DRIBBLE]How do you compare eras? I mean really?[/QUOTE]

A lot of very reputable Bill James-type statheads who also serve as consultants for NBA franchises have looked into this question and answered it.

Basically, you compare the production of everyone in the league at a certain year and track it for the next year. If you look at everyone who played last year, and track production for next year, the guys playing last year should still get about 98% of total "everything" (pts, reb, ast, etc) the following year if the league level is constant. You will rarely see 100% due to aging of vets.

If it's below 98%, that means the league is getting better, and vets are getting replaced by better talent more quickly. If it's above 98%, that means the vets are able to stick around longer, because the incoming talent isn't good enough to knock them out. If you look at this over 30 years, you can get a good picture of when the league was at its best. The answer is that the league was better in the mid/late 80s than at any time in history. The second best era was the early 60s before all of the expansion. The worst era was the mid 70s before the ABA and NBA merged. The second worst was the early 00s.

The current era is about equal to the early 90s. So sure, the game is more popular now globally, but that doesn't make it any better. McDonalds is more popular than a lot of places, but the food isn't very good. Stars are the same in any era, but the biggest difference between the 1980s, 1990s and today, was the depth of talent in the 80s. I'll take a top 10 list at any position from the 1985 and compare it to any position in 1995. 1985 wins out or is even at every position. A good example of the 1980s vs. today is Mark Price vs. Steve Nash. Nash is marginally better than Price was. The difference is that Price was thought of as a top 5 PG while Nash was always in the MVP conversation.

The talent might catch up to expansion in the next 6 or 7 years to make another greatest era, but that hasn't happened yet.

[QUOTE=Chicago76]A lot of very reputable Bill James-type statheads who also serve as consultants for NBA franchises have looked into this question and answered it.

Basically, you compare the production of everyone in the league at a certain year and track it for the next year. If you look at everyone who played last year, and track production for next year, the guys playing last year should still get about 98% of total "everything" (pts, reb, ast, etc) the following year if the league level is constant. You will rarely see 100% due to aging of vets.

[B][B]If it's below 98%, that means the league is getting better, and vets are getting replaced by better talent more quickly. If it's above 98%, that means the vets are able to stick around longer, because the incoming talent isn't good enough to knock them out. [/B]If you look at this over 30 years, you can get a good picture of when the league was at its best. The answer is that the league was better in the mid/late 80s than at any time in history. The second best era was the early 60s before all of the expansion. The worst era was the mid 70s before the ABA and NBA merged. The second worst was the early 00s.

The current era is about equal to the early 90s. So sure, the game is more popular now globally, but that doesn't make it any better. McDonalds is more popular than a lot of places, but the food isn't very good. Stars are the same in any era, but the biggest difference between the 1980s, 1990s and today, was the depth of talent in the 80s. I'll take a top 10 list at any position from the 1985 and compare it to any position in 1995. 1985 wins out or is even at every position. A good example of the 1980s vs. today is Mark Price vs. Steve Nash. Nash is marginally better than Price was. The difference is that Price was thought of as a top 5 PG while Nash was always in the MVP conversation.

The talent might catch up to expansion in the next 6 or 7 years to make another greatest era, but that hasn't happened yet.[/QUOTE]

So basically the rookies have to be responsible for over 2% of the league's production for the league to look like its getting better? Well that would never work cause rookies today aren't expected to do nearly as much as before because of the age they come in. I really don't think you can say the league is getting better or worse by judging what players are doing as rookies. Maybe by doing that for players who have played up to 3-4 years, but not just their first season.

A more accurate comparison between decades would be to compare not only the elite players but the role/bench players too.

Otherwise the thread title should be changed to 80's elite vs 90's elite.

[QUOTE=Silverbullit][B]A more accurate comparison between decades would be to compare not only the elite players but the role/bench players too.[/B]

Otherwise the thread title should be changed to 80's elite vs 90's elite.[/QUOTE]

That would also go to the 80's.

Just look at the roster for the Lakers/Celtics in the 80's and compare it to the roster from the Bulls of the 90's. It's a no brainer. The Lakers/Celtics were deeper than the Bulls. The Lakers and Celtics were deep in every position while the Bulls never had an descent Center. Just compare Luc Longley/ Bill Cartwright to Kareem and Parish. It's no contest. Look at the bench for both teams the Lakers and Celtics had guys like Michael Cooper, Bob McAdoo, Mychal Thompson, Bill Walton, Scott Wedman, Gerald Henderson. While the Bulls had Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Toni Kukoc. There is no question the Lakers/Celtics were deeper.

[QUOTE=guy]So basically the rookies have to be responsible for over 2% of the league's production for the league to look like its getting better? Well that would never work cause rookies today aren't expected to do nearly as much as before because of the age they come in. I really don't think you can say the league is getting better or worse by judging what players are doing as rookies. Maybe by doing that for players who have played up to 3-4 years, but not just their first season.[/QUOTE]

You can look at it using only 25 year olds to 30 years and comparing their performace the followin year at 26 to 31. Doing this, you can exclude old guys and young players who have yet to hit their stride. The results are still the same. The stongest leagues were still in the mid 1980s and early 1960s. The weakest were still the mid 1970s pre merger and early 00s. The mid 1990 was about avearge.

[QUOTE=Chicago76]You can look at it using only 25 year olds to 30 years and comparing their performace the followin year at 26 to 31. Doing this, you can exclude old guys and young players who have yet to hit their stride. The results are still the same. The stongest leagues were still in the mid 1980s and early 1960s. The weakest were still the mid 1970s pre merger and early 00s. The mid 1990 was about avearge.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the leagues had the biggest improvements from the previous year, but I wouldn't say that thats an indicator that the league was strongest. For example, if you look at the early 60s, couldn't that have just been a result of an increase in black players? Wasn't it just before that the teams were purposefully not drafting black players until Red Auerbach changed that? Do you have a link to this?

[QUOTE=guy]Maybe the leagues had the biggest improvements from the previous year, but I wouldn't say that thats an indicator that the league was strongest. For example, if you look at the early 60s, couldn't that have just been a result of an increase in black players? Wasn't it just before that the teams were purposefully not drafting black players until Red Auerbach changed that? Do you have a link to this?[/QUOTE]

I dug for the link last night. The work might have been done by Rosenbaum or Dean Oliver--not sure. The jist of it is that you make the same comparison year over year and chain years together. 1960 prime players were compared to their prime + 1 year results in 1961. 1961 prime players were compared to their prime +1 year results in 1962, and so on, until you get to today. You can then standardize the ratios to come up with era comparisons. The jist of it follows:

Mid 1950s: the NBA was still in its infancy, few African Americans or non-east Coast players at this time. Rating of 80 or so.

1960: inclusion of northern African Americans (Chamerblains, Russells, etc)100 or so

1965: inclusion of southern African Americans into the league (Reeds, Fraziers, etc) 115 or so

early to mid 1970s: league expansion and ABA offset further integration. Rating of 95 to 100 or so.

Late 70s: merger of NBA and ABA, and loss of some ABA teams in merger 105 or so

Mid 80s: college game is mature, unusually high crop of young talent. Minimal expansion to offset the growth in talent. 120 or so.

Mid 90s: New expansion era (Toronto, Vancouver, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Minnesota) offsets the increase in total player pool. 100 to 105.

Early 2000s: No more dream team era players and their close peers. New guys coming in not able to help as much as they're too young. 95 or so.

Mid 2000s: Young guys are coming around with a little exta time to mature 105 or so.

The game appears to be trending up again. I'm not trying to hate on any group of players. Kareem and Erving played most at most of their peak in a more watered down era, just like Shaq or Duncan. They can't help when they're born, and they would have been among the best in any era. The 80s were just a unique time when you had A) little expansion B) an unusually high talent crop from 1979 or so to 1985 C) a lot of advancements in sports medicine to extend guys' careers and keep them healthy longer and D) not a lot of young players entering the league at 18, with a lot of them breaking down and missing what should be their prime years at 28 or 29.

I'll keep digging.

[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.

And since when does more teams mean a weaker league? 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]


actually your wrong its it just a coincedence that the year that MJ retired breaking up arguably the greatest moderned day dynasty ever at the end of 98' the nba would be locked out like NHL was last year and only play a 40gm season you think that would have happened if the most powerful man in sports was still playing you think dumbazz i hate when ppl talk and they dont know what the hell they are talking about

[QUOTE=lilojmayo]actually your wrong its it just a coincedence that the year that MJ retired breaking up arguably the greatest moderned day dynasty ever at the end of 98' the nba would be locked out like NHL was last year and only play a 40gm season you think that would have happened if the most powerful man in sports was still playing you think dumbazz i hate when ppl talk and they dont know what the hell they are talking about[/QUOTE]

Jordan actually partly led the lockout with the players union. He didn't even retire until January 1999. The lockout had nothing to do with the Bulls breaking up and Jordan retiring.

i'm watching the celtics/rockets finals and it seems as though the players throw the ball more aggressively than today. just a fyi.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I've been messing around on whatifsports and i made a team from the 80's and 90's.

[B]80's[/B]
C - 79-80 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
PF - 86-87 Kevin McHale
SF - 85-86 Larry Bird
SG - 88-89 Michael Jordan
PG - 86-87 Magic Johnson
BENCH
84-85 Isiah Thomas
88-89 Clyde Drexler
80-81 Julius Erving
85-86 Dominique Wilkins
81-82 Moses Malone
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
98-99 Gary Payton
91-92 Clyde Drexler
92-93 Charles Barkley
93-94 David Robinson
91-92 Reggie Miller
96-97 Grant Hill
93-94 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?[/QUOTE]

[B]Excuse me dude but no PF was better than Barkley when he was in his PRIME, FIT AND HEALTHY from 1985 to 1995 :no: Not Even Close! [/B]

[B]And the 1980s was the Best Time in not only Basketball but Music (popr, rock, aor, prog, metal etc even rap had more class), Movies, Cars, Video Games, Dressing Styles etc everything.

Legends like Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Drexler, Pippen, etc of Top 50 Players of All Time could hardly make it to the NBA Finals until the early 90s and in some cases the Late 90s (in the case of Malone and Stockton)

Has anyone also noticed that it wasn`t til 1999 that a team composed mostly of 1990s Drafted Players in General to finally win a title?. I mean 1980s Drafted Players straight away where contending players along the 1970s stars that where left but it took the 1990s Drafted Players way too long to win a title. Thats how ****ing Good and Competitive the 80s were. Man 1980s Nostalgia even en Basketball![/B]

[QUOTE=NoGunzJustSkillz]i'm watching the celtics/rockets finals and it seems as though the players throw the ball more aggressively than today. just a fyi.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean "throw the ball"? Shooting? Passing? Or was it a joke because a player threw the ball at another player in that series? :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Loki]What do you mean "throw the ball"? Shooting? Passing? Or was it a joke because a player threw the ball at another player in that series? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

i think that hes sitting in his living room with an mph gun and clocking the passes from one player to another.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]Excuse me dude but no PF was better than Barkley when he was in his PRIME, FIT AND HEALTHY from 1985 to 1995 :no: Not Even Close! [/B]

[B]And the 1980s was the Best Time in not only Basketball but Music (popr, rock, aor, prog, metal etc even rap had more class), Movies, Cars, Video Games, Dressing Styles etc everything.

Legends like Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Drexler, Pippen, etc of Top 50 Players of All Time could hardly make it to the NBA Finals until the early 90s and in some cases the Late 90s (in the case of Malone and Stockton)

Has anyone also noticed that it wasn`t til 1999 that a team composed mostly of 1990s Drafted Players in General to finally win a title?. I mean 1980s Drafted Players straight away where contending players along the 1970s stars that where left but it took the 1990s Drafted Players way too long to win a title. Thats how ****ing Good and Competitive the 80s were. Man 1980s Nostalgia even en Basketball![/B][/QUOTE]

but its widely regarded that the nba was at a down period in the 70s and alot of those teams that won in the early eighties had dominant 70s players. look at the first five years of the 80s. it all the same. i mean the first few championships in the 80s were still dominated by 70s players. other than magic and bird. and magic joined a good team. so once again, theres really no fifference between the 90s and 80s.

and also as far as comparing the 80s and 90s. 80s proponents biggest argument is the "watered down" theory. this theory is ASSinine. you have no logical basis to support that the league is any less talented now or in the 90s than it was in the 80s. your reasoning that if the league had less teams the talent concentration would be better is a faulty one because drafting players is not an exact science. hundreds of players have ended up being better than the players drafted ahead of them. and obviously, the draft is a gamble. hell, in the early 80s there were FIVE rounds in the draft. as opposed to only TWO in the 90s and present. so really it was easier to get in the nba in the 80s.

the next argument 80s ******gers use is stats. but that has been refuted many times by pace and so forth.

i truly believe 80s people love that decade because of the up and down fast paced style of play. but the fact is that more people watched the nba in the 90s than the 80s and that was mainly bacause of the BULLS. that team was compared to the beatles. with jordan and rodman, and europeans watching toni kukoc who was the best player in europe at the time. a team who is regarded by many as the GREATEST TEAN EVER.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]Legends like Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Drexler, Pippen, etc of Top 50 Players of All Time could hardly make it to the NBA Finals until the early 90s and in some cases the Late 90s (in the case of Malone and Stockton)[/QUOTE]

That's not exactly fair. MJ didn't have to face the depth of good teams in the 90's that he would've had to face in the 80's (due to expansion, free agency, etc), but by the same token the 80's didn't have to face the beast that MJ became starting in the early 90's.

By the way, the 80's had more good teams because the talent wasn't as diluted and teams stayed together longer, but the 90's had much better defense. Maybe I should say, defenders were allowed to do much more in the 90's than they were in the 80's. Once the Pistons started winning championships by playing brutally physical defense in the late 80's, it set the tone for the 90's. Less talented teams were not as easy to beat because they were allowed to maul the other team defensively.

For example, the Bucks were a good team in the mid through the late 80's. They were much more talented than, say, the early 90's Knicks. But which team is harder to defeat? I would say the Knicks because they were big strong players that were allowed to play very physical. The Bucks beat you on talent and execution. The Knicks just beat you up.

The Celtics struggled against the Pistons in the late 80's. Larry Bird [I]really[/I] struggled against the Pistons, especially in 88. The Pistons are the pre-cursor to the defensive-minded teams of the 90's. It's not too hard to believe that Larry and the Celtics would have struggled against the Pistons-cloned teams of the 90's even though the C's were WAY more talented.

The 80s were actually probably the worst period in music... well the 00s certainly puts up a fight for that dubious distinction with all the shyt out there.

MJ was as much a beast in the late 80s as the early 90s. His team was better in the 90s.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]That's not exactly fair. MJ didn't have to face the depth of good teams in the 90's that he would've had to face in the 80's (due to expansion, free agency, etc), but by the same token the 80's didn't have to face the beast that MJ became starting in the early 90's.

By the way, the 80's had more good teams because the talent wasn't as diluted and teams stayed together longer, but the 90's had much better defense. Maybe I should say, defenders were allowed to do much more in the 90's than they were in the 80's. Once the Pistons started winning championships by playing brutally physical defense in the late 80's, it set the tone for the 90's. Less talented teams were not as easy to beat because they were allowed to maul the other team defensively.

For example, the Bucks were a good team in the mid through the late 80's. They were much more talented than, say, the early 90's Knicks. But which team is harder to defeat? I would say the Knicks because they were big strong players that were allowed to play very physical. The Bucks beat you on talent and execution. The Knicks just beat you up.

The Celtics struggled against the Pistons in the late 80's. Larry Bird [I]really[/I] struggled against the Pistons, especially in 88. The Pistons are the pre-cursor to the defensive-minded teams of the 90's. It's not too hard to believe that Larry and the Celtics would have struggled against the Pistons-cloned teams of the 90's even though the C's were WAY more talented.[/QUOTE]

Interesting take.

There's a poster on another board who suggested that one of the main reasons pace was higher back then was because of the concentration of talent -- teams with lots of talent want to run and press their talent advantage early and often, because they have multiple players who can do multiple things with the ball, and all of them can score. Teams that are less talented prefer to slow things down since they need to execute at a much higher level in the halfcourt to get scores, and they also prefer to grind it out/thug it up defensively to neutralize superior talent. At least this is what he says. I think it's an interesting, if not entirely accurate, perspective.

One could look at how Pat Riley coached a team with a ton of offensive talent (the 80's Lakers) versus how he coached teams with far less offensive talent (90's Heat/Knicks) for some evidence of that. Stylistically, it was like night and day. One wonders if philosophical changes in the game re: defense were the only factors driving that change.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]That's not exactly fair. MJ didn't have to face the depth of good teams in the 90's that he would've had to face in the 80's (due to expansion, free agency, etc), but by the same token the 80's didn't have to face the beast that MJ became starting in the early 90's.

By the way, the 80's had more good teams because the talent wasn't as diluted and teams stayed together longer, but the 90's had much better defense. Maybe I should say, defenders were allowed to do much more in the 90's than they were in the 80's. Once the Pistons started winning championships by playing brutally physical defense in the late 80's, it set the tone for the 90's. Less talented teams were not as easy to beat because they were allowed to maul the other team defensively.

For example, the Bucks were a good team in the mid through the late 80's. They were much more talented than, say, the early 90's Knicks. But which team is harder to defeat? I would say the Knicks because they were big strong players that were allowed to play very physical. The Bucks beat you on talent and execution. The Knicks just beat you up.

The Celtics struggled against the Pistons in the late 80's. Larry Bird [I]really[/I] struggled against the Pistons, especially in 88. The Pistons are the pre-cursor to the defensive-minded teams of the 90's. It's not too hard to believe that Larry and the Celtics would have struggled against the Pistons-cloned teams of the 90's even though the C's were WAY more talented.[/QUOTE]

the league was not "diluted" in the 90s

[QUOTE=97 bulls]but its widely regarded that the nba was at a down period in the 70s and alot of those teams that won in the early eighties had dominant 70s players. look at the first five years of the 80s. it all the same. i mean the first few championships in the 80s were still dominated by 70s players. other than magic and bird. and magic joined a good team. so once again, theres really no fifference between the 90s and 80s.

and also as far as comparing the 80s and 90s. 80s proponents biggest argument is the "watered down" theory. this theory is ASSinine. you have no logical basis to support that the league is any less talented now or in the 90s than it was in the 80s. your reasoning that if the league had less teams the talent concentration would be better is a faulty one because drafting players is not an exact science. hundreds of players have ended up being better than the players drafted ahead of them. and obviously, the draft is a gamble. hell, in the early 80s there were FIVE rounds in the draft. as opposed to only TWO in the 90s and present. so really it was easier to get in the nba in the 80s.

the next argument 80s ******gers use is stats. but that has been refuted many times by pace and so forth.

i truly believe 80s people love that decade because of the up and down fast paced style of play. [B]but the fact is that more people watched the nba in the 90s than the 80s and that was mainly bacause of the BULLS.[/B] that team was compared to the beatles. with jordan and rodman, and europeans watching toni kukoc who was the best player in europe at the time. a team who is regarded by many as the GREATEST TEAN EVER.[/QUOTE]

Like i said before popularity does not equal quality.

The 80's will always be the Glory days of the NBA rather you like it or not. You had more great teams in the 80's much better rivalries in the 80's and better players in the 80's.

Just look at the NBA in the mid-late 80's

Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Dominique Wilkins
Joe Dumars
Isiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Hakeem Olajuwon
John Stockton
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
Julius Erving
Adrian Dantley
Kevin McHale
Clyde Drexler
Alex English
James Worthy

At one point there were 20 HOFers playing in the NBA at the same time with 23 teams in the NBA. Thats an average of nearly 1 HOF player per team. TRULY AMAZING!!!

Not to mention you had 3 of the greatest teams in NBA History playing in this period of time. The '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, & '89 Pistons.

80's = GOAT:rockon:

[QUOTE=Loki]Interesting take.

There's a poster on another board who suggested that one of the main reasons pace was higher back then was because of the concentration of talent -- teams with lots of talent want to run and press their talent advantage early and often, because they have multiple players who can do multiple things with the ball, and all of them can score. Teams that are less talented prefer to slow things down since they need to execute at a much higher level in the halfcourt to get scores, and they also prefer to grind it out/thug it up defensively to neutralize superior talent. At least this is what he says. I think it's an interesting, if not entirely accurate, perspective.

One could look at how Pat Riley coached a team with a ton of offensive talent (the 80's Lakers) versus how he coached teams with far less offensive talent (90's Heat/Knicks) for some evidence of that. Stylistically, it was like night and day. One wonders if philosophical changes in the game re: defense were the only factors driving that change.[/QUOTE]

tell your friend that hes an idiot. the knicks were a physical team and the lakers were a finesse team. it has nothing to do with the kincks not being as talented than the lakers beacause they couldnt run, and more to do with a team playing to their strength. the lakers coulnt play a physical style of ball. the only team that could play both styles is the bulls

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Like i said before popularity does not equal quality.

The 80's will always be the Glory days of the NBA rather you like it or not. You had more great teams in the 80's much better rivalries in the 80's and better players in the 80's.

Just look at the NBA in the mid-late 80's

Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Dominique Wilkins
Joe Dumars
Isiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Hakeem Olajuwon
John Stockton
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
Julius Erving
Adrian Dantley
Kevin McHale
Clyde Drexler
Alex English
James Worthy

At one point there were 20 HOFers playing in the NBA at the same time with 23 teams in the NBA. Thats an average of nearly 1 HOF player per team. TRULY AMAZING!!!

Not to mention you had 3 of the greatest teams in NBA History playing in this period of time. The '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, & '89 Pistons.

80's = GOAT:rockon:[/QUOTE]


by you not answering to my rebutal to the watered down theory i assume that you agree. and while i def. feel that the teams and players you named were great the 90s (in particular96-97) bulls were better than all three.

but its widely regarded that the nba was at a down period in the 70s and alot of those teams that won in the early eighties had dominant 70s players. look at the first five years of the 80s. it all the same. i mean the first few championships in the 80s were still dominated by 70s players. other than magic and bird. and magic joined a good team. so once again, theres really no fifference between the 90s and 80s.

[B]That is why I am saying that the 80s draft players or close to the 80s was the most competitive time in the NBA. No era has produced so many Great Stars some which would be in the Top 50-60 Players of All Time and did not make it just do to dumb policies like Dominique Wilkins or Bernard King. Guys like Mark Aguirre, Alex English, Rolando Blackman, Ralph Samson, Chuck Person great players that could not keep themselves as healthy in the 90s but trust me if they did they would have rocked much stronger than most of the 90s Drafted Stars.

It actually took less years for the 80s drafted players to make impacts. Examples are many: Bird, Magic, Worthy, McHale, Isiah, Bernard King, Joe Dumars, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Jordan, Barkley, Stockton, Alex English, Rolando Blackman, Ralph Samson, Hakeem, K Malone, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, Tom Chambers, Chris Mullin, Rodman, David Robinson, Kevin Jhonson, Tim Hardaway etc all of these where STAR CALIBER PLAYERS by their 2nd or 3rd season. In some cases by their 1st. Roll Players that were drafted in the 80s were superor to the ones drafted in the 90s too.

What im saying the 80s players made great impacts right away and only few 70s Drafted Stars and Great 70s Drafted Roll Players of that era could sustain themselves with the 80s Drafted Stars [U]but in the 90s pretty much, the 80s Drafted Stars Kept dominating till 1999, when finally the Spurs won with Robinson as their leader and Duncan as an emerging young star[/U].

[U]Compared to the 80s were both 70s and 80s Stars Ruled, very few 1990s Drafted Stars could compete straight up with the 1980s Drafted Stars or Roll Players even if these dudes where way past their phyisical prime [/U](and in 80% of the cases they were inferior). Some examples: Shaq, Alonso Morning, Kemp, Webber, Grant Hill, Jason Kid and thats about it.

Pistons won a Championship with Starting line ups and most players that where all 80s draft players. Pistons: Bill Laimbeer 80-81, Isiah Thomas 81-82, Joe Dumars 85-86, Salley 86-87, Mahorn 80-81, Rodman 86-87, Vinne Johnson 79-80 (very close). Same with the Lakers: Magic 79-80, Worthy 82-83 Bryant 83-84, Green 85-86, Rambis 81-82) and Celtics: Bird is 79-80 pretty much 80s too and McHale 80-81 were the deadly scoring threats, Parish, Maxwell and DJ were late 70s great roll players and semi stars, not early 70s.[/B]


and also as far as comparing the 80s and 90s. 80s proponents biggest argument is the "watered down" theory. this theory is ASSinine. you have no logical basis to support that the league is any less talented now or in the 90s than it was in the 80s. your reasoning that if the league had less teams the talent concentration would be better is a faulty one because drafting players is not an exact science. hundreds of players have ended up being better than the players drafted ahead of them. and obviously, the draft is a gamble. hell, in the early 80s there were FIVE rounds in the draft. as opposed to only TWO in the 90s and present. so really it was easier to get in the nba in the 80s.

the next argument 80s ******gers use is stats. but that has been refuted many times by pace and so forth

[B]Then explain to me why is it that the 1980s Drafted Stars and 1980s Drafted Great Roll Players (especially the Stars) kept dominating the 1990s Drafted Stars with ease in most cases?[/B]

.

i truly believe 80s people love that decade because of the up and down fast paced style of play. but the fact is that more people watched the nba in the 90s than the 80s and that was mainly bacause of the BULLS. that team was compared to the beatles. with jordan and rodman, and europeans watching toni kukoc who was the best player in europe at the time. a team who is regarded by many as the GREATEST TEAN EVER.

[B]We loved the 80s and early 90s (a continuation of the 80s Stars and Great Roll Players) because it was just a superior era with more talent :rolleyes: not because the fast paced style :confusedshrug:.

And actually in the 1980s, the Lakers was the only team capable of playing that style year after year succesfully for 5 Championships. Portland failed, Jazz failed, Suns failed, Sonics which had both also failed. Rockets finally won when Jordan left to play Baseball.

The truth is that the 1980s and early 1990s was dominated by Slow Paced Eastern Teams like the Sixers: 1 Championship, the Celtics: 3 Championships (could play both but prefered the slow paced), Pistons: 2 Championships and Bulls: 3 Straight Championships.

East: 9 Championships Total (and all were major struggles after winning the Eastern Semifinals etc)
West: 5 Championships Total (just the Lakers, which arrived in perfect condition to the finals year after year because the tough play and competition was in the east!)

Then again go ask DJ, Bird, McHale, Jordan, Barkley, Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer etc where the real competition was in the East or West? They would say without question the East :hammerhead: . The Lakers had a very easy competition (Rockets and Blazers if that!) compared to these dudes. Even the [U]Bucks, Cavs and Knicks[/U], if they played in the West, would have become a Way Superior Competition in the West for the Lakers in both the late 80s and early 90s.

1980s Stars By far:violin:[/B]

[QUOTE=72-10]The 80s were actually probably the worst period in music... well the 00s certainly puts up a fight for that dubious distinction with all the shyt out there.[/QUOTE]

[B]Are you insane? Compare Hard Rock, Aor, Metal, Progressive Rock or even Pop Singers, Ballads, Soul of the 80s to the bull**** of the 90s: Grunge,Alternative **** etc :hammerhead:

80s = Goat Time of Basketball and Everything Else![/B]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]tell your friend that hes an idiot. the knicks were a physical team and the lakers were a finesse team. it has nothing to do with the kincks not being as talented than the lakers beacause they couldnt run, and more to do with a team playing to their strength. the lakers coulnt play a physical style of ball. the only team that could play both styles is the bulls[/QUOTE]

Anyone can play a physical style of ball if they buy into it. He's not my "friend," either, just a poster on another board.

[QUOTE=Loki]Anyone can play a physical style of ball if they buy into it. He's not my "friend," either, just a poster on another board.[/QUOTE]

[B]Wrong. It depends on the players you have. In the 80s the West used to favor elegant fast paced dribbling passing offensive players for their teams (only the Lakers were succesfull) while the East favored witty agressive defensive minded play ground players that could rebound and post play.

In the 90s both styles minged together so the differences were less

1980s Goat Era of NBA Basketball, Period.[/B].

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Like i said before popularity does not equal quality.

The 80's will always be the Glory days of the NBA rather you like it or not. You had more great teams in the 80's much better rivalries in the 80's and better players in the 80's.

Just look at the NBA in the mid-late 80's

Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Dominique Wilkins
Joe Dumars
Isiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Hakeem Olajuwon
John Stockton
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
Julius Erving
Adrian Dantley
Kevin McHale
Clyde Drexler
Alex English
James Worthy

At one point there were 20 HOFers playing in the NBA at the same time with 23 teams in the NBA. Thats an average of nearly 1 HOF player per team. TRULY AMAZING!!!

Not to mention you had 3 of the greatest teams in NBA History playing in this period of time. The '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, & '89 Pistons.

80's = GOAT:rockon:[/QUOTE]

[B]Forgot David Robinson he was 1989 Draft:), Kevin McHale, Ralph Samson, Dennis Rodman, Chris Mullin, Tom Chambers, Kevin Jhonson, Alex English, Rolando Blackman, Bernard King, Scottie Pippen, Reggie Miller, Fat Lever etc etc..list goes on:applause: [/B]

80s
90s

00s
70s


60s

50s


40s

[QUOTE=72-10]80s
90s

00s
70s


60s

50s


40s[/QUOTE]

[B]Close but Change it to:

1-Glorious 1980s!

2-Early & Mid 1990s

3-Late 1990s
4-2000s

5-1970s

6-1960s
7-1950s

8-1940s[/B]

:)

its as simple as the more things change the more they stay the same. the players drafted in the 70s dominated the mid 80s. players drafted in the mid 80s dominated the 90s the players drafted in the 90s are domianating now and players drafted in the 00s are gonna dominate the teens. now as with every rule there is an exception and in this case its guys like magic and bird being drafted right into the 80s and dominating AND THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT THE LEAGUE WAS WEAK BUT BY YOUR LOGIC IT WAS. or jordan dominating all the way up to 98. or guys like wade and lebron coming in and almost instantly making it to the finals or winning it(wade in 95). thats my explanation

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]Forgot David Robinson he was 1989 Draft:), Kevin McHale, Ralph Samson, Dennis Rodman, Chris Mullin, Tom Chambers, Kevin Jhonson, Alex English, Rolando Blackman, Bernard King, Scottie Pippen, Reggie Miller, Fat Lever etc etc..list goes on:applause: [/B][/QUOTE]


what is the signifacance of this post i could rattle of names of great players drafted in the 90s too. if those are your favorites fine. its saying one era is less talented than others is where i draw the line.

[QUOTE=Loki]Anyone can play a physical style of ball if they buy into it. He's not my "friend," either, just a poster on another board.[/QUOTE]

dude in order to be play physical you have to be physical.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]its as simple as the more things change the more they stay the same. the players drafted in the 70s dominated the mid 80s. [B]players drafted in the mid 80s dominated the 90s[/B] the players drafted in the 90s are domianating now and players drafted in the 00s are gonna dominate the teens. now as with every rule there is an exception and in this case its guys like magic and bird being drafted right into the 80s and dominating AND THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT THE LEAGUE WAS WEAK BUT BY YOUR LOGIC IT WAS. or jordan dominating all the way up to 98. or guys like wade and lebron coming in and almost instantly making it to the finals or winning it(wade in 95). thats my explanation[/QUOTE]

They also dominated in the 80's. That's what made that era so great.

Guys who dominated the 90's like Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Ewing also dominated the 80's.

Barkley had seasons averaging 25-28 PPG while grabbing 12-15 RPG during the 80's. Jordan was MVP and DPOY in '88 also ROY in '85 and was ALL NBA First team 1987-1989. Hakeem reached the NBA Finals in 1986 and ALL NBA First team threw 1987-1989. Patrick Ewing averaged 20 PPG and 9 RPG during the 80's. Karl Malone was a top 3 PF in the NBA during the late 80's.

Now look at players drafted in the mid 90's. Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, & Kevin Garnett didn't make much noice in the 90's. Rookies in the 90's did not make impact like rookies in the 80's.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]They also dominated in the 80's. That's what made that era so great.

Guys who dominated the 90's like Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Ewing also dominated the 80's.

Barkley had seasons averaging 25-28 PPG while grabbing 12-15 RPG during the 80's. Jordan was MVP and DPOY in '88 also ROY in '85 and was ALL NBA First team 1987-1989. Hakeem reached the NBA Finals in 1986 and ALL NBA First team threw 1987-1989. Patrick Ewing averaged 20 PPG and 9 RPG during the 80's. Karl Malone was a top 3 PF in the NBA during the late 80's.

Now look at players drafted in the mid 90's. Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, & Kevin Garnett didn't make much noice in the 90's. Rookies in the 90's did not make impact like rookies in the 80's.[/QUOTE]

[B]Amen:confusedshrug: [/B]

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]
The Celtics struggled against the Pistons in the late 80's. Larry Bird [I]really[/I] struggled against the Pistons, especially in 88. The Pistons are the pre-cursor to the defensive-minded teams of the 90's. It's not too hard to believe that Larry and the Celtics would have struggled against the Pistons-cloned teams of the 90's even though the C's were WAY more talented.[/QUOTE]

That's because the big 3 hasn't been healthy since 1987! Injuries also contributed to the Celtics struggle since 1988. Pistons defense was good but tend to be overrated.

[QUOTE=BrianScalabrine]That's because the big 3 hasn't been healthy since 1987! Injuries also contributed to the Celtics struggle since 1988. Pistons defense was good but tend to be overrated.[/QUOTE]

Nah... they weren't injured. I've been watching the 88 series all week. Danny Ainge was injured, but that was it. The Big 3 were not injured. The Pistons were just a better team that year.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]

It actually took less years for the 80s drafted players to make impacts. Examples are many: Bird, Magic, Worthy, McHale, Isiah, Bernard King, Joe Dumars, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Jordan, Barkley, Stockton, Alex English, Rolando Blackman, Ralph Samson, Hakeem, K Malone, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, Tom Chambers, Chris Mullin, Rodman, David Robinson, Kevin Jhonson, Tim Hardaway etc all of these where STAR CALIBER PLAYERS by their 2nd or 3rd season. In some cases by their 1st. Roll Players that were drafted in the 80s were superor to the ones drafted in the 90s too.

What im saying the 80s players made great impacts right away and only few 70s Drafted Stars and Great 70s Drafted Roll Players of that era could sustain themselves with the 80s Drafted Stars [U]but in the 90s pretty much, the 80s Drafted Stars Kept dominating till 1999, when finally the Spurs won with Robinson as their leader and Duncan as an emerging young star[/U].

[U]Compared to the 80s were both 70s and 80s Stars Ruled, very few 1990s Drafted Stars could compete straight up with the 1980s Drafted Stars or Roll Players even if these dudes where way past their phyisical prime [/U](and in 80% of the cases they were inferior). Some examples: Shaq, Alonso Morning, Kemp, Webber, Grant Hill, Jason Kid and thats about it.

[/QUOTE]

You say this is because the 80s drafted players had much bigger impacts right away then the 90s drafted players as your evidence that the 90s was weaker. But couldn't the 80's drafted players faster impacts have just occurred cause the 70s drafted players were much weaker? That should be a possibility. Either way, I'll agree with you, that the 80s drafted players are easily the greatest, but I don't see how that makes the 90s weaker, since the majority of those players played in the 90s.

[QUOTE=guy]You say this is because the 80s drafted players had much bigger impacts right away then the 90s drafted players as your evidence that the 90s was weaker. But couldn't the 80's drafted players faster impacts have just occurred cause the 70s drafted players were much weaker? That should be a possibility. Either way, I'll agree with you, that the 80s drafted players are easily the greatest, but I don't see how that makes the 90s weaker, since the majority of those players played in the 90s.[/QUOTE]


And a lot of them were at their absolute best in the 90's. Including Charles Barkley.