Nick Wright is liar - "90's East weak" but 6 team in 97 East had 54+ win and 2 had 60

.
.
[INDENT][IMG]https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-25-2025/o1zeq4.gif[/IMG][/INDENT]


[size=4]Shaq/Penny Magic were formidable in 96', while the 93' Knicks won 60 games and were the 1 seed with homecourt.. The 97' Heat won 60 games, and the Bad Boys were 2-time defending champs in 91' with Isiah/Dumars/Rodman at 29/27/29 years old.. Cavs won 57 games and had 3 all-stars in 92'.[/size]







[img]https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-18-2021/MXQa8S.gif[/img]




[img]https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-11-2025/_rNo7l.gif[/img]

Nick Wright is a click-bait artist like Skip Bayless and Stephen A who's only goal is to take strong stances to piss people off and get more views because of it.

I guess it's worked on you..

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15013479]Nick Wright is a click-bait artist like Skip Bayless and Stephen A who's only goal is to take strong stances to piss people off and get more views because of it.

I guess it's worked on you..[/QUOTE]


you literally repeat his arguments verbatim.

you spout all his talking points in response to my posts.

you believe what he believes (that the biggest loser and underachiever of rosters in history is goat)

you think Lebron has goat IQ even though he's a dumb ball-dominator that turns everyone into spot-up shooter, and never developed a single young player or good brand of ball in 22 years.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15013479]Nick Wright is a click-bait artist like Skip Bayless and Stephen A who's only goal is to take strong stances to piss people off and get more views because of it.

I guess it's worked on you..[/QUOTE]


you literally repeat his arguments verbatim.

you spout all his talking points in response to my posts.

you believe what he believes (that the biggest loser and underachiever of rosters in history is goat)

you think Lebron has goat IQ even though he's a dumb ball-dominator that turns everyone into spot-up shooter, and never developed a single young player or good brand of ball in 22 years.

you might be Nick Wright.. You're certainly sneaky and underhanded enough... But not cool enough though (no black wife.. no poker... no left wing and protester mindset, smh)

:roll:

Nice try.

Why in the f[U]u[/U]ck are we making threads about Nick Wright? The man is one notch below Skip Bayless on how cringe his takes are. I read "Nick Wright" in the thread title and immediately clicked to reply with this and ignored the original post in its totality because of how absurd it is to give that much serious thought into whatever he says.

[QUOTE=Meticode;15013522]Why in the f[U]u[/U]ck are we making threads about Nick Wright? The man is one notch below Skip Bayless on how cringe his takes are. I read "Nick Wright" in the thread title and immediately clicked to to reply with this and ignored the original poster in it's totality because of how absurd it must be to give that much serious thought into whatever he says.[/QUOTE]


You guys love this guy..

He's your hero and you spout all his talking points and believe what he believes (that there's a legitimate debate to be had)

[QUOTE=3ba11;15013523]You guys love this guy..

He's your hero and you spout all his talking points and believe what he believes (that there's a legitimate debate to be had)[/QUOTE]

Do you usually just spew bullshit out of mouth through your fingertips onto you keyboard?

[QUOTE=Meticode;15013526]Do you usually just spew bullshit out of mouth through your fingertips onto you keyboard?[/QUOTE]


Anyone can read the posts of you guys backing Lebron and spouting the same crap that Kendrick Perkins, Nick Wright and Colin Cowherd said.. You give credence to the idea that Lebron needs more help, aka it's his cast's fault, not Lebron's shitty brand of ball.... or that MJ's left hand was shaky, or any number of bs talking points.. you fool no one by spouting all the Nick Wright talking points and then pretending your entire basketball knowledge wasn't gleaned from TV.. It literally was. You obviously didn't play, so you learned everything from TV, aka Nick Wright and the like.. carry on tho

[QUOTE=3ba11;15013528]Anyone can read the posts of you guys backing Lebron and spouting the same crap that Kendrick Perkins, Nick Wright and Colin Cowherd said.. You give credence to the idea that Lebron needs more help, aka it's his cast's fault, not Lebron's shitty brand of ball.... or that MJ's left hand was shaky, or any number of bs talking points.. you fool no one by spouting all the Nick Wright talking points and then pretending your entire basketball knowledge wasn't gleaned from TV.. It literally was. You obviously didn't play, so you learned everything from TV, aka Nick Wright and the like.. carry on tho[/QUOTE]

I've always been critical of LeBron. Anyone who's posted here long enough since his first stint in Cleveland and then his second stint would say I was one of the most critical Cavaliers fans in regards to LeBron on this forum. I don't hate the man with a passion like many people do, but I don't worship him either.

Nick Wrong is a pathetic, born, LeBronsexual loser.

80s and 90s East Conf was incredibly clogged, overflowing with talent, even on the bench. reason they had to add 2 more teams to East in '89.

The most dangerous was CENTRAL DIVISION.
Bad Boys +
Jordanaires +
'Nique's upcoming Hawks +
Bucks built on D +
upcoming, upset minded Cavs with arguably the best talent on each spot. Price; Ron; Dougherty; Nance; hog rod; Ehlo; Kerr.

Expansion watered down the 90's.... of course win counts would be elevated

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15013535]Expansion watered down the 90's.... of course win counts would be elevated[/QUOTE]

no it didn't.

it looks like that bacause LAL and CELTICS regressed. LAL just tanked and CELTICS lost Len Bias and Reggie Lewis both.

Just because NBA's royalty regressed and become nothing dont mean 90s regressed. thats pure BS.

Just look at Charles, PHILLY, MJ's BULLS, Ewings NYK, Zo-Grandmama's CHA, Rice's HEAT, Reggies' IND, ron's CLE, BAD BOYS, Niq'es HAWKS, Shaq-Penny's ORL.

west had BLAZERS, JAZZ, ROCKETS, SAS, SEA.

Both conference's loaded to benches. East was all physical D. West was all Run and Gun offense.

Just because LAL and BOS became garbage dont mean 90s sucks. Its only in your head.

Nick Wright is definitely lying by saying the East was weak in the 90's. The truth is the whole NBA was weak is the 90's.

1-9

[QUOTE=Axe;15013581]1-9[/QUOTE]

9-0

It's an incontrovertible fact that the late 90s was the worst era for NBA talent since the merger.

Post expansion, pre globalisation.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013653]It's an incontrovertible fact that the late 90s was the worst era for NBA talent since the merger.

Post expansion, pre globalisation.[/QUOTE]

Stick to Cricket Mate!

or

Ozzy rules football.

fk globalization. single entity that destroyed NBA forever.

That doesnt mean its not weak.

Those teams could be shit

Nick Wright take 30 minutes to answer any question.

We're still discussing that weak watered down era :oldlol:

[QUOTE=gengiskhan;15013668]Stick to Cricket Mate!

or

Ozzy rules football.

fk globalization. single entity that destroyed NBA forever.[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then[/QUOTE]


The new talent pool is worse than the old one because Americans are much worse at basketball

Shaq, MJ, and Robinson have been replaced by Ant and Ja.. This massive decline in the best source of players and the majority of the NBA (Americans) is why today's NBA player is far worse than previous eras

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then[/QUOTE]


The new talent pool is worse than the old one because Americans are much worse at basketball

Shaq, MJ, and Robinson have been replaced by Ant and Ja.. This massive decline in the best source of players and the majority of the NBA (Americans) is why today's NBA player is far worse than previous eras ..

Today's spaced-out hands-off beginner format also produces weaker players, regardless of where they're from, aka Jokic < Hakeem... Embiid < Ewing, etc

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then[/QUOTE]

There's only so many minutes to be played. Stockpiling All Star talent on 3 teams where only a few of them get to play meaningful minutes doesn't make the league better. At some point, even the team doesn't get better. What's the use of having Terrell Brandon sitting on the bench watching Mark Price? Cleveland wasn't better for having an All Star sitting on the bench just like the 49'ers weren't better because Steve Young was on the sidelines watching Joe Montana. These guys needed to play. The 80's had guys like Kevin Johnson and Drazen Petrovic coming off the bench who were allowed to flourish when given the opportunity to play big minutes.

The expansion Hornets got Alonzo Mourning and Larry Johnson. You'd rather them rot on the bench watching Brad Daugherty for 5 years just so we can say Cleveland was "loaded"? What's the point if they're not playing or barely used? Or splitting time with an All Star center?

Was Detroit worse for letting Rick Mahorn go? He took his physical presence to Philadelphia and made them a little more solid. Was Chicago worse for letting BJ Armstrong go? They won 72 games the next season.

The expansion Magic were in the Finals within 6 years. The NBA in the 90's had plenty of talent to justify adding new teams.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist;15014108]There's only so many minutes to be played. Stockpiling All Star talent on 3 teams where only a few of them get to play meaningful minutes doesn't make the league better. At some point, even the team doesn't get better. What's the use of having Terrell Brandon sitting on the bench watching Mark Price? Cleveland wasn't better for having an All Star sitting on the bench just like the 49'ers weren't better because Steve Young was on the sidelines watching Joe Montana. These guys needed to play. The 80's had guys like Kevin Johnson and Drazen Petrovic coming off the bench who were allowed to flourish when given the opportunity to play big minutes.

The expansion Hornets got Alonzo Mourning and Larry Johnson. You'd rather them rot on the bench watching Brad Daugherty for 5 years just so we can say Cleveland was "loaded"? What's the point if they're not playing or barely used? Or splitting time with an All Star center?

Was Detroit worse for letting Rick Mahorn go? He took his physical presence to Philadelphia and made them a little more solid. Was Chicago worse for letting BJ Armstrong go? They won 72 games the next season.

The expansion Magic were in the Finals within 6 years. The NBA in the 90's had plenty of talent to justify adding new teams.[/QUOTE]

I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.

Im not saying the best players were worse because of expansion. I'm not saying that there weren't still great teams.

I'm saying that, on average, every roster was worse top to bottom than it was pre expansion and post globalisation. It's not a controversial statement. There were 25% more roster spots and no increased talent pool to fill them until globalization gained momentum. So, obviously, they were filled with people who otherwise wouldn't have made the league.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then[/QUOTE]

the way things are going......

WTC25 will be won by Proteas!

they only trail by 69 runs down only 2 wickets.

Starc might get early wicket tomorrow. Cummins looks cooked. Hazelwood is threatening enough and might get another.

Losing WTC Finals to Safaris aint looking good for aussies for next 5 yrs.

Starc is 35 now. will retire soon. Steve Smith will retire too. Cummins will retire soon too.

Ozzies aint competing for WTC until 2031 looks like.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.

In the 2000s, the talent pool increased, so the league has gotten stronger since then[/QUOTE]

the way things are going......

WTC25 will be won by Proteas!

they only trail by 69 runs down only 2 wickets.

Starc might get early wicket tomorrow. Cummins looks cooked. Hazelwood is threatening enough and might get another.

Losing WTC Finals to Safaris aint looking good for aussies for next 5 yrs.

Starc is 35 now. will retire soon. Steve Smith will retire too. Cummins will retire soon too.

Ozzies aint competing for WTC until 2031 looks like.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15013706]That doesnt mean its not weak.

Those teams could be shit[/QUOTE]

Weakest NBA era ever


Gengkid flailing and boomer double posting

[QUOTE=gengiskhan;15014283]the way things are going......

WTC25 will be won by Proteas!

they only trail by 69 runs down only 2 wickets.

Starc might get early wicket tomorrow. Cummins looks cooked. Hazelwood is threatening enough and might get another.

Losing WTC Finals to Safaris aint looking good for aussies for next 5 yrs.

Starc is 35 now. will retire soon. Steve Smith will retire too. Cummins will retire soon too.

Ozzies aint competing for WTC until 2031 looks like.[/QUOTE]

Smith isn't retiring any time soon. He'll pass Sachin when it's all said and done.

For sure the league was way more balanced in the 90s than the 2010s. Jordan had to beat prime Ewing/Shaq/Penny etc meanwhile Bran went up against Monta Ellis, Derozan, Paul George, Al Horford, Victor Oladipo and a rookie Tatum lol.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15013877]I'm just saying that there were a lot of guys getting court time in 1996 that wouldn't have in 1988, because there were 6 more teams, but no increase in talent pool. It's common sense.

There were 6 guys who would have been a second option in 1988, who were now first. 12 guys who were the third option who were now 2nd. Lots of guys starting, who would have been coming off the bench.[/QUOTE]

No increase in talent pool? Absolute bullshit. The NBA had exploded in popularity by then. More and more kids were dying to be pro ballers.

Also if your second sentence is true, good because being a 1st option when you would have been a 2nd years before makes you a better player with more responsibility. Same with 3rd becoming 2nd options.

The "expansion era" being weak in one of the biggest myths in NBA history which has been debunked in every conceivable way. It's peddled only by LeBron deepthroaters or kids who probably werent even born back then.

International players are better now. Obviously Americans were the best source of players back in the day...because they were the only ones who played the sport :lol

If Jokic, SGA, Luka, and Giannis didn't exist maybe Ant has two 27ppg titles and is talked about differently.

The earth has a lot of people outside of the US, and they care more about basketball than they did 30-40 years ago. Is what it is and it's not a bad thing.

International players are better now. Obviously Americans were the best source of players back in the day...because they were the only ones who played the sport :lol

If Jokic, SGA, Luka, and Giannis didn't exist maybe Ant has two 27ppg titles and is talked about differently.

The earth has a lot of people outside of the US, and they care more about basketball than they did 30-40 years ago. Is what it is and it's not a bad thing.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15014419]International players are better now. Obviously Americans were the best source of players back in the day...because they were the only ones who played the sport :lol

If Jokic, SGA, Luka, and Giannis didn't exist maybe Ant has two 27ppg titles and is talked about differently.

The earth has a lot of people outside of the US, and they care more about basketball than they did 30-40 years ago. Is what it is and it's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe the Americans are just worse because they run their kids to the ground before they even make it to pro level?

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15014419]International players are better now. Obviously Americans were the best source of players back in the day...because they were the only ones who played the sport :lol

If Jokic, SGA, Luka, and Giannis didn't exist maybe Ant has two 27ppg titles and is talked about differently.

The earth has a lot of people outside of the US, and they care more about basketball than they did 30-40 years ago. Is what it is and it's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

It's true and completely obvious. I don't know why ppl in here get so butt hurt about it.

[QUOTE=Nowoco;15014409]No increase in talent pool? Absolute bullshit. The NBA had exploded in popularity by then. More and more kids were dying to be pro ballers.

Also if your second sentence is true, good because being a 1st option when you would have been a 2nd years before makes you a better player with more responsibility. Same with 3rd becoming 2nd options.

The "expansion era" being weak in one of the biggest myths in NBA history which has been debunked in every conceivable way. It's peddled only by LeBron deepthroaters or kids who probably werent even born back then.[/QUOTE]

On average, a team that Jordan came up against in 1988 had the following talent profile in their roster.

1. 12th best player in the league
2. 35th best
3. 58th best
4. 81st best
5. 104th best
6. 127th best
7. 160th best
8. 183rd best
Etc.

In 1996, the teams Jordan faced, on average, had the following talent profile in their roster.

1. 15th best player in the league
2. 44th best
3. 73rd best
4. 102nd best
5. 131st best
6. 160th best
7. 189th best
8. 218th best
Etc.

How hard is it to understand that the 1988 roster is much better, much harder to beat and much harder for a superstar to dominate against than the 1996 roster!?

The only way for this not to be true, is if the talent pool increased significantly. Now, this happened with globalization, but it took time. So there was a period in between where the league was temporarily inferior from a talent perspective, in the mid-late 90s.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15014587]On average, a team that Jordan came up against in 1988 had the following talent profile in their roster.

1. 12th best player in the league
2. 35th best
3. 58th best
4. 81st best
5. 104th best
6. 127th best
7. 160th best
8. 183rd best
Etc.

In 1996, the teams Jordan faced, on average, had the following talent profile in their roster.

1. 15th best player in the league
2. 44th best
3. 73rd best
4. 102nd best
5. 131st best
6. 160th best
7. 189th best
8. 218th best
Etc.

How hard is it to understand that the 1988 roster is much better, much harder to beat and much harder for a superstar to dominate against than the 1996 roster!?

The only way for this not to be true, is if the talent pool increased significantly. Now, this happened with globalization, but it took time. So there was a period in between where the league was temporarily inferior from a talent perspective, in the mid-late 90s.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how you came up with those numbers but I'm curious as to how your system ranks the players for the 97 and 98 Jazz against the 97 and 98 Lakers. Let's see if your rankings would justify the Jazz winning 8 out of 9 playoff games.

[QUOTE=AussieSteve;15014587]So there was a period in between where the league was temporarily inferior from a talent perspective, in the mid-late 90s.[/QUOTE]

The late 90's Lakers were stacked. 80's-style stacked. But they didn't win in what you say is a weak era. They actually had to shave off some talent in order to become a dynasty. That talent went to strengthen other teams. So the league got better and tougher to navigate when the 80's stacked team shared the wealth a little bit. There were no more sulking all stars splitting time with each other. Instead, guys were sent off to flourish somewhere else. The guys that remained were allowed to blossom. Multiple teams are now better instead of just one.

[QUOTE=Nowoco;15014409]
The "expansion era" being weak in one of the biggest myths in NBA history which has been debunked in every conceivable way. It's peddled only by LeBron deepthroaters or kids who probably werent even born back then.[/QUOTE]
ROFLMAO, it hasn’t been debunked at all! The Association expanded more than 25% during Jordan’s era. To posture that the game wasn’t weakened by that thinning of the talent is just delusional swinger myopia.