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

[ImKobe]

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.

[Nowoco]

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.

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.

[ShawkFactory]

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

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.

[ShawkFactory]

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

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.

[ImKobe]

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

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.

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

[AussieSteve]

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

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.

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

[AussieSteve]

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.

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.

[Da_Realist]

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.

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.

[Da_Realist]

So there was a period in between where the league was temporarily inferior from a talent perspective, in the mid-late 90s.

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.

[Chick Stern]

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.

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.

[AussieSteve]

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.

I'm not talking about any specific player or team.

My numbers are just averages. If there are 23 teams the best player on each team, on average, is the 12th best player in the league and the 2nd best on each team is on average the 35th best. Etc.

I'm not saying the best players in 97 were any better or worse than the best players 10 years earlier or later. Just that overall the league average player was worse and that the best players were spread more thinly because there were more teams, but no increased talent pool.

The talent pool increased over the subsequent decade as the league globalized.

[Nowoco]

My numbers are just averages.

Your numbers are a crock of shit.

[AussieSteve]

Your numbers are a crock of shit.

Only if you can't comprehend basic math