Article from 1996 talking about how weak and diluted the NBA has become

[1987_Lakers]

Found the article on realgm.

"This league is so filtered and watered down, we can beat anybody with our eyes closed, pretty much," Rodman said.

"You look at the overall picture, it is diluted to some extent," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, whose team is in Los Angeles preparing to meet the Lakers on Friday night. "You can get by with three great players on a team, and have a chance to win it all. Before, you had to have four or five great players, and some good players around them."

"The talent level now nowhere compares to what it was eight years ago, and obviously it's because of expansion," said Jazz broadcaster Ron Boone.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/1/5/192...s-to-expansion

[ArbitraryWater]

Lmao

From the horse's mouth

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The late 90s were definitely washed. Well, if you're comparing them to the early 90s and late 80s.

[Kblaze8855]

Well obviously if you remove Minnesota, Orlando, Toronto, Miami, Grizzlies, and the Hornets in 1996 you distribute what....8-9 stars to the other teams and 30+ starters to make every team deeper too. That isn’t debatable. That’s an inevitable part of any time of expansion. You gradually make it up as the talent base expands but any league with less teams and similar talent will have better teams.

[Kblaze8855]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

[HoopsNY]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

Which is never factored into the conversation. It's as if teams like Chicago somehow wouldn't have access to any players had there not been an additional 6 teams. But surprisingly, 22 other teams get dibs on all the draft picks, all the top 6th men, all the all-stars, and all of the future HOF'ers. It's an odd double standard that almost never gets spoken of.

[RogueBorg]

It's relative, meaning watered down for one watered down for all. Why wasn't any other team approaching 70-wins? Why wasn't any other team doing what the Bulls were doing? It wasn't just watered down for Chicago to enjoy.

[LAmbruh]

Ouch


Kiddie Park 3pt line it is

[97 bulls]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

[Kblaze8855]

The best teams today approach pre expansion talent by players just deciding to do it. You could give the league 50 teams. If 3-4 stars wanna play together they can still do it.

[Akeem34TheDream]

When contenders get deeper, performances of first option players become less crucial. And the best player in the league is less likely to win a title. There was no injustice in that era but there can be if you compare eras and rings.

[Akeem34TheDream]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

Talent pool gets bigger day by day. If we see 10 new teams next year, then yes teams will get weaker for a while until talent pool balances it again.

[Roundball_Rock]

Off the top of my head that distributes Shaq, Penny, KG, Marbury, Googs(assuming he was in minny already), Damon, Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Zo and Tim Hardaway to other teams plus a lot of high end good players who weren’t stars. There’s a reason the 80s were called a golden age. Roughly modern levels of talent with it spread across fewer teams. Teams didn’t replicate it often till player movement allowed the players to do it themselves.

Exactly. I am surprised people don't get it. The rosters speak for themselves. Just look at a 90's contender and compare it to contenders from the 80's or before that. The 00's were more like the 90's than the 10's.

Only free agency has allowed teams to built the type of contenders that existed prior to the NBA expanding in the late 80's/90's. You have/had teams with Curry, Wade, Westbrook, George, Davis as the #2 option and it is no big deal today. Third options like Klay Thompson who would be the #1 option on 90's Indiana or the mid-2000's Pistons.

Why wasn't any other team approaching 70-wins? Why wasn't any other team doing what the Bulls were doing? It wasn't just watered down for Chicago to enjoy.

The Bulls were the only team with 2 superstars along with Orlando for a minute. They then added a third HOF player. They were an outlier who bucked the trend.

[1987_Lakers]

So does this mean todays teams are weaker?

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.

[Roundball_Rock]

Talent pool is way better today, just look at the players who made the All-Star team in '97.

Vin Baker, Laettner, Terrell Brandon, Schrempf, Tom Gugliotta, Chris Gatling. Yuck.

If you wear a headband you had to get one ASG like Gatling and Cliff Robinson got.

A prime example of win inflation is Utah, the other team with two consistent HOF players (although Stockton was never a MVP candidate). Stockton became a stater in 88' (his fourth season) so let's start there, although his first all-star season was 89'.

Utah wins from 1988-2000: 47, 51, 55, 54, 55, 47, 53, 60, 55, 64, 62, 61*, 55.

Utah couldn't clear 55 with both Malone, Stockton in their 20's but then started winning 60+ when Malone, Stockton were 31 and 32. Even in 2001 with Malone 37 and Stockton 38 they won 53.

*Prorated over 82 games.