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.
Printable View
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.