Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 60

Thread: Rank The Eras

  1. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    397

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    1. 80s
    2. 60s
    3. 00s
    4. 90s
    5. 70s

    The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously. The 60s had some all-time legends, 70s had more parity than any other era.

  2. #17
    Game. Set. Match. bdreason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    24,893

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    80's
    00's
    Present Time
    90's
    60's
    70's
    50's

  3. #18
    Local High School Star Poetry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,859

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by MiamiThrice
    The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously.
    There were always NBA level players on the fringes.

    You make it seem like there were only 325 NBA level players back then, then the NBA suddenly expanded and they had to go to the unemployment lines to find filler to fill roster spots

    99% of top level talents were all in the NBA and the players at the bottom of the spectrum are mostly interchangeable with few exeptions.

    Say there are somewhere between 360 and 450 employable NBA level players today depending on rosters and injuries, those at the bottom are interchangeable, but they've always existed. Before the D-League existed, there was the CBA. Before Europe 2012 existed, Europe 1995 existed. Etc, etc. And there are even more players available that could make it into the league in any given era.

    Look at the NBA draft lists from the 1980's, those lists are like 160 players deep.

    NBA level talents existed outside the NBA long before expansion. All expansion did was employ them.

  4. #19
    ... iamgine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,108

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by Poetry
    You are viewing things in an odd vacuum.

    Say for instance, there was a university that only admitted 100 top qualified candidates a year. Then the next year they decide to admit 120 students. The fact that additional students were added to the ranks, doesn't suddenly mean the requirements for getting into the university are less stringent. And it doesn't mean those 20 student didn't exist. Or that another 200 behind them aren't waiting to get into the school too. It just means a larger number of deserving people were allowed into the school.

    Likewise, in the NBA, the talent was always there at the college and alternative professional level, but the league was more exclusive. So fewer deserving players were getting into it.

    For instance, say the NBA contracted. Does that all of sudden mean there will be less people trying to get into the league? That all of a sudden, that the thousands upon thousands of ballers trying to get into the league will suddenly give up. No it just means fewer will get in and will be distributed outside the NBA.

    There are always guys knocking at the door, fighting tooth and nail to get into the league, deserving, talented players that just don't get in.

    Look at the Raptors in their first year of existence. .256 W/L record (1995-96). Look at them in their 17th year of existence: .268 W/L (2010-11). They've come full circle over the course of their existence. Not every team in the league can have a winning percentage.

    In 1995 there were 29 teams. The year before that, 27, i believe.

    Today there are 30.

    Based on what you think, the league today should technically be more watered down than it's ever been.

    But that isn't the case either. 99% of the elite players, all-star players, great players and good players will get into the league regardless of how many teams there are.

    The league now is about as competitive as it was then.

    1995--13 sub .500 teams.
    1996--13 sub .500 teams.

    2010--14 sub .500 teams.
    2009--13 sub .500 teams.
    I think you miss the point. The same amount of talent spread over more teams will surely make the league more watered down. If we have 20 Lebrons spread over 10 teams, that would surely be less watered down than 20 Lebrons spread over 30 teams. That's strictly in terms of quality though.

    Competitiveness doesn't have anything to do with this. If everyone sucks equally, the league would still be as competitive as ever.

  5. #20
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,917

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by SHAQisGOAT
    Everything, general consensus among people that know basketball will say that the best decade is the 80's, why you're acting so suprised lol.
    Id say that general consensus you're talking about is nothing but Lakers and Celtics fans that are bitter over the Bulls dominance of the 90s. A dominance that no team has ever had.


    The 80's had amazingly deep teams filled with amazing players, yes there were bad teams but not as much as in every other era (on average), and almost no really terrible team.
    The Western Conference in the 90s was terrible. There was no competition for the showtime Lakers. And the league was filled with guys strung out on cocaine.

    Had like 4 of the GOAT teams in NBA history ('83 Sixers, '86 C's, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons).
    This doesn't mean the League was better. Perhaps you can enlighten how four teams can make a whole decade.


    Then you had other really good teams throughout the decade, at some point, like the Bucks (especially), the Rockets, the Hawks, the Mavs, the Nuggets, the Knicks...
    The league wasn't watered down.
    Another myth perpetuated by Laker and Celtics fans. There were more athletes playing basketball in the 90s. And the talent pool increased.

    Filled of excitment with a lot of amazing players like, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Erving, Isiah, Wilkins, Moses, Worthy, McHale, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, English, Moncrief, Gervin, King, Dantley, Karl, Stock, Nance, Drexler, Aguirre..........
    This is a preference. Doesn't mean the 80s is the best due to it possessing your favorite players.


    Rules wasn't for p**sies.
    All decades have had rule changes. The 80s was no exception.


    Historic and competitive contests and all star games.
    LOL really?
    You had it all.
    No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.

  6. #21
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,917

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by iamgine
    I think you miss the point. The same amount of talent spread over more teams will surely make the league more watered down. If we have 20 Lebrons spread over 10 teams, that would surely be less watered down than 20 Lebrons spread over 30 teams. That's strictly in terms of quality though.

    Competitiveness doesn't have anything to do with this. If everyone sucks equally, the league would still be as competitive as ever.
    So how can you determine the NBA in the 90s was picking from the same talent as the 80s?

  7. #22
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,917

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by MiamiThrice
    1. 80s
    2. 60s
    3. 00s
    4. 90s
    5. 70s

    The 1990s is perhaps the most overrated era of basketball. The league was so watered down with all of the expansion teams the league was a ****ing joke. By the 00s it recovered due to all of the international talent that was previously not in the NBA and defenses improved tremendously. The 60s had some all-time legends, 70s had more parity than any other era.
    The 90s had plenty of international players like the 00s. And they had great centers like the other eras.

    Going by your theory, the league waas at its best during the 50s. That's when it had the fewest teams.

  8. #23
    ... iamgine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,108

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    So how can you determine the NBA in the 90s was picking from the same talent as the 80s?
    Whaa...

  9. #24
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,917

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by iamgine
    Whaa...
    Exactly. You don't know what you're talking about

  10. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    4,370

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by LosBulls
    Rank the best eras in terms of skill level and talent.

    1. 80s-90s
    2. 2000-Present
    3. 90s-2000
    4. Stone Age
    5. Ice Age
    6. Medieval Times
    7. 40s-70s


    Medieval Times >>> Ice Age. And it's not even close.

  11. #26
    Good High School Starter nycelt84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    935

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.
    When you say the Bulls had a dominance no team has ever had before it seems to me you forgot the part where 1 team won 8 straight titles and 11 out of 13 neither which the Bulls did.

  12. #27
    ... iamgine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,108

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    Exactly. You don't know what you're talking about

  13. #28
    National High School Star Nevaeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,043

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by SHAQisGOAT
    Everything, general consensus among people that know basketball will say that the best decade is the 80's, why you're acting so suprised lol.

    The 80's had amazingly deep teams filled with amazing players, yes there were bad teams but not as much as in every other era (on average), and almost no really terrible team.
    Had like 4 of the GOAT teams in NBA history ('83 Sixers, '86 C's, '87 Lakers, '89 Pistons).
    Then you had other really good teams throughout the decade, at some point, like the Bucks (especially), the Rockets, the Hawks, the Mavs, the Nuggets, the Knicks...
    The league wasn't watered down.
    Filled of excitment with a lot of amazing players like, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Jordan, Erving, Isiah, Wilkins, Moses, Worthy, McHale, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, English, Moncrief, Gervin, King, Dantley, Karl, Stock, Nance, Drexler, Aguirre..........
    Rules wasn't for p**sies.
    Historic and competitive contests and all star games.
    You had it all.
    Don't forget that fundamentals were at an all-time high back then too. Plus, coaches were way more respected back then, and would bench you in a heartbeat for slacking.

  14. #29
    Samurai Swoosh
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chicago's Finest
    Posts
    2,320

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    1) '89 - '95
    2) 2008 - Current
    3) '84 - '88
    4) '96 - '98
    5) 2004 - 2007
    6) '99 - 2003


    I think the way the OP described the eras is a bit too vague for my liking. I also can only judge what I've seen in context ('84 - '88 being seen mostly on replay)

    I didn't see much else prior ... but I can say that from what I've seen ... I feel '89 - '95 had the best distribution of talent through out the league. No top heavy super teams like '84 - '88 or 2008 - current. True superstars, and IMO the greatest balance of athleticism, size, positional talent, skill, and basketball IQ of all the eras in discussion.

    Also, 1999 till 2003 is easily the worst era of basketball I've ever seen.

    The game at that time was sloppy, basketball IQ and skills eroded with the inclusion of massive amounts of premature HS draft class players, who were selected off potential and versatile athleticism instead of actual basketball skills and abilities. All that in clash with a generation of talent trying too hard to be like MJ, instead of playing solid team basketball killed the quality of the game for a good period of time. Not to mention simple basketball skills like defensive fundamentals, ability to hit jump shots were all evaporating from league play.

    2004 - 2007 was only slightly better, but all the weak rule changes made the game even more difficult to watch for a period of time. I think things started picking up for the better in 2008 once the super Celtics squad formed, the Lakers improved w/ the addition of Gasol, and the rules and caliber of play all balanced out. Plus then in turn forcing the likes of the individual stars of smaller market teams, with bad rosters, such as LeBron / Wade and Bosh to coming together to stay competitive in a rapidly changing top heavy league.

    2008 - Current is very much like the league was from '84 - '88.

  15. #30
    College star SHAQisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,108

    Default Re: Rank The Eras

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    No decade trumps another. They've all given basketball fans memorable moments. Why you 80s guys feel the need to continuously make this claim is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that players careers overlaps. Teams rise and fall. Aand dynasties are beaten by new dynasties. There weren't really any dynsties in the 70s. But the NBA 80s dynasties the Lakers and Celtics were beaten by the Pistons who were beaten by the Bulls.

    80's were the best decade, get over it and stop making ridiculous claims.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •