true or false: jordan played in a watered down league

[RsxPiimp]

HarlemHeat37 is a firm believer that Michael Jordan played in a watered down league compared today.

do you fellas agree with this?

[spurraider21]

ususally, its kobe/lebron fanboys under the age of 25 that didn't really watch 90's ball that say MJ played in a watered down league, in order to prop their guy up. i addmitedly didn't watch 90's ball, but i'm sure its vastly underrated by people in my age group who didn't actually watch it. i think the rule changes that occured post MJ are a bigger deal than any talent disparity

[Vash StampedE]

Jordan>>>>Kobe and that's the only thing I'll agree upon in this thread.

[Clipper Nation]

It was watered down a little bit by the rule changes Stern made to help Jordan win (i.e. stricter flagrant foul and fighting rules, five-points rule, shortened three-point line, hand-checking ban, etc.) but what really watered down the league was the boring perimeter isoball era of the early 2000s that came after MJ, tbh....

[Katherine Robinson]

The 2012-13 Spurs and 2011-2012 Thunder would lose in the first or second round during the playoffs at the time of Jordan's tenure on the Bulls.

[elmanutres]

The 2012-13 Spurs and 2011-2012 Thunder would lose in the first or second round during the playoffs at the time of Jordan's tenure on the Bulls.

imagine the 12-13 lakers :lol

[Katherine Robinson]

imagine the 12-13 lakers :lol

There is not much to imagine, they would not participate. Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant would never win a ring during that era unless paired with a dominant player such as Hakeem or Shaq.

[elmanutres]

There is not much to imagine, they would not participate. Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant would never win a ring during that era unless paired with a dominant player such as Hakeem or Shaq.
i always wondered what would happen had the bulls not broken up in 98 and faced the spurs in 99. Some say they would win cause...well they were the 90's bulls. But some say they would lose cause they would be too old at that point and would face a big problem with duncan and drob packing the paint, especially a young duncan.

[lefty]

HarlemHeat37 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11597) is a firm believer that Michael Jordan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12815) played in a watered down league compared today.

do you fellas agree with this?
no

[Kidd K]

Well, some new teams were added to the NBA during the Jordan era. In most sports, fans (and so-called "experts") will typically always look at expansion years, and the year or two following their being added in as "watered down". So technically you had the Heat, Timberwolves, Hornets, and Magic added into the NBA in the early-Jordan era before he won any titles. Then the Raptors and Grizzlies later after he won 3 titles.

So in that sense, it was temporarily watered down with some "scrub teams" for a little bit before they picked up steam. Though if you're going to use that argument, you also have to use it any time a team was added to the NBA. Which is most decades.

In terms of talent, I don't think it was watered down at all. Look at the massive stats the top bigs had in Jordan's era. Jordan was pretty unique in how much he dominated out of the SG position. That was not a common practice at the time at all.


It was watered down a little bit by the rule changes Stern made to help Jordan win (i.e. stricter flagrant foul and fighting rules, five-points rule, shortened three-point line, hand-checking ban, etc.) but what really watered down the league was the boring perimeter isoball era of the early 2000s that came after MJ, tbh....

The 3pt line was shortended when MJ first retired and was switched back after his first full season back. So that rule actually barely effected MJ at all. The handchecking rule was also changed after MJ first retired. So he only played with 3 full years of it on the Bulls, not nearly his full career.

Since both of those rules were done after MJ retired, you can't say they were "for MJ". Jordan played most of his career under the full, old NBA rules and obviously did not need those rule changes. Those rule changes were far more meant for the rest of the league so more "Jordan-type players" (dominant very high scoring perimeter players) could be created.

I agree about the boring perimeter isoball era comment though.

[RsxPiimp]

It was watered down a little bit by the rule changes Stern made to help Jordan win (i.e. stricter flagrant foul and fighting rules, five-points rule, shortened three-point line, hand-checking ban, etc.) but what really watered down the league was the boring perimeter isoball era of the early 2000s that came after MJ, tbh....

i agree but jordan was winning anyway even with those rules in place. fact is the celtics, lakers and pistons just gold old and the bulls blossomed at the right time

[RsxPiimp]

the paint was packed with premier big men though, and its still amazing jordan league at a time when the best big men were all playing in their prime

[Calispursfan11]

HarlemHeat37 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11597) is a firm believer that Michael Jordan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12815) played in a watered down league compared today.

do you fellas agree with this?

Lol son. Mailman, Stockton, Ewing, Hakeem, Sir Charles. Lol. Is this a joke tbh?

[spurraider21]

Lol son. Mailman, Stockton, Ewing, Hakeem, Sir Charles. Lol. Is this a joke tbh?

and MJ spent the first 6 years of his career during the Magic/Bird saga and the Bad Boys pistons. then the 90's had stockton, malone, ewing, charles, prime hakeem, payton, etc

while MJ spent his first 6 seasons without much roster help in a league with the lakers/celtics/pistons Kobe got to spend the first third of his career and 60% of his titles playing robin.

i didn't watch 80's or much of 90's, but the consensus seems to be it was a lot less monkey isoball than the 2000's. speaking of watered down, didn't iverson's sixers make the finals against the lakers?

[Koolaid_Man]

HarlemHeat37 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11597) is a firm believer that Michael Jordan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12815) played in a watered down league compared today.

do you fellas agree with this?

yes and no.... when he won his titles in the early - mid 90's...absolutely yes when he couldn't win because of Larry, Magic, and Isaiah then No...he failed when it counted the most...Now back to the 90's on the defensive side of the ball NO he played in the best era of defensive players...in fact it's the only reason I give him the slight edge over Kobe...the bad boy Pistons, the fucking 92 Knicks....those were some gotdam hard ass pipe hitting muthafuckas...man listen I used to hang with my fam in NYC back in those days and I'm telling that Pistons team and that Knick team on defense was a muthafucka...and MJ got through it...

Now as for the offensive side of the ball...he CERTAINLY played in a watered down league when he won his titles...Listen Reggie Miller was the only stud to really give it to MJ..and MJ used to cheat against Reggie all the time..he had the refs in his pockets..man Reggie all he needed was one player on his squad with some heart and MJ might dam neat be ringless..if not he would likely only have 2 or 3 the other half would have went to Reggie... MJ never faced night in and night out top scorers in the league like today...the 1's, 2's and 3's man these cats be lighting it up..MJ had no one to really go back at him..and please save the Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing comparisons....Reggie Miller was MJ's only real competition and even then the refs still had to cheat for MJ...:lol

[spurraider21]

If Iverson's Sixers made the finals in 2001 you can all stfu about the 90's being watered down :rollin




http://www.footytube.com/static/user-serve/profile-images/lrg/56e5954715223c459e9b47fb2f957f3d.jpg

[Koolaid_Man]

ususally, its kobe/lebron fanboys under the age of 25 that didn't really watch 90's ball that say MJ played in a watered down league, in order to prop their guy up. i addmitedly didn't watch 90's ball, but i'm sure its vastly underrated by people in my age group who didn't actually watch it. i think the rule changes that occured post MJ are a bigger deal than any talent disparity

^ then shut your Paki soccer playing falafalel eating ass up...you don't know a got dam thang if you didn't watch in the 90's...gtfo

[spurraider21]

^ then shut your Paki soccer playing falafalel eating ass up...you don't know a got dam thang if you didn't watch in the 90's...gtfo

Paki? you think i'm harlem or somethin?

but it's true that its normally kobe or bron fanboys that talk about the lack of talent in the 90's

[Michael Jordan.]

Crofl 09 Magic
00 Pacers
01 76ers
02 Nets
04 Pistons (and lost :lol)

[Koolaid_Man]

Paki? you think i'm harlem or somethin?

you have no credibility if you didn't watch in the 90's...I'm really not interested in a got dam thang you got to say....

[spurraider21]

you have no credibility if you didn't watch in the 90's...I'm really not interested in a got dam thang you got to say....
half the fuckers posting on this forum didn't watch 90's but as long as they agree with you, your cool with it...

what team did MJ beat that was worse than the 09 magic or 01 sixers? :lol

[Michael Jordan.]

Kool, gettin his shit pushed in like it was 9:30 pm in cell block B.

[spurraider21]

Kool, gettin his shit pushed in like it was 9:30 pm in cell block B.

:lol best argument is to insult a nationality (which isn't even mine)
:lol can't answer a simple question
:lol "more talented era" saw iverson led sixers make the finals
:lol "more talented era" saw Dwight led magic make the finals

[Clipper Nation]

The 3pt line was shortended when MJ first retired and was switched back after his first full season back. So that rule actually barely effected MJ at all.
:lol Bullshit.... the shortened 3-point line was in place from 1994-95 to 1996-97.... that includes the Bulls' 72-win season, when Jordan "coincidentally" shot and made threes at the highest rate of his career, doubling his previous career highs....

Jordan Jockers are too funny :lol

[TrainOfThought5]

Jordan>>>>Kobe and that's the only thing I'll agree upon in this thread.

[Rogue]

The post-jordan era, from 98 up until the rise of the 03' generation might be described as a watered-down league. Basically it was those 96' graduates plus a few from 97 and 98 (Duncan, Dirk and Pierce) that were carrying the flag through that time. TBH if you ever played NBA live 01 or 02 you would find that those All-star teams were pretty laughable.

[baseline bum]

Crofl 09 Magic
00 Pacers
01 76ers
02 Nets
04 Pistons (and lost :lol)

Forgot the 03 Nets, 06 Heat, and 07 Cavs.

[Rogue]

The league was suffering from a drought of talents with most 84' and 85' graduates either gone retired or gone TOSB. While most 96' talents were still rather young and naive back then. So the only players who were right in their primes during that era were limited to those drafted pre-05, such as Shaq, Kidd, C-Webb etc...

[Thebesteva]

It was watered down a little bit by the rule changes Stern made to help Jordan win (i.e. stricter flagrant foul and fighting rules, five-points rule, shortened three-point line, hand-checking ban, etc.) but what really watered down the league was the boring perimeter isoball era of the early 2000s that came after MJ, tbh....

Honestly, how many Jordan games did you actually watch when you were 4 years old?

[ambchang]

It was watered down a little bit by the rule changes Stern made to help Jordan win (i.e. stricter flagrant foul and fighting rules, five-points rule, shortened three-point line, hand-checking ban, etc.) but what really watered down the league was the boring perimeter isoball era of the early 2000s that came after MJ, tbh....

Most of those changes came after Jordan's first three-peat. And the shortened three point line only lasted a couple of years, one of which Jordan only played 17 games.

But I agree with you, the league changed the rules immensely to cater to the perimeter players in the 00's. namely in 2002.

[Kool Bob Love]

HarlemHeat37 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11597) is a firm believer that Michael Jordan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12815) played in a watered down league compared today.

do you fellas agree with this?

http://www.michaeljordanpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Michael-Jordan-6-Championships-Parade.jpg

[Big Empty]

i think so. back then most teams had a big two. now days you arnt gonna do anything without a big 3.

[spurraider21]

i think so. back then most teams had a big two. now days you arnt gonna do anything without a big 3.

are the miami heat truly a big 3? was bosh's 12/7 on 46% shooting good enough to qualify there?

[RsxPiimp]

yes and no.... when he won his titles in the early - mid 90's...absolutely yes when he couldn't win because of Larry, Magic, and Isaiah then No...he failed when it counted the most...Now back to the 90's on the defensive side of the ball NO he played in the best era of defensive players...in fact it's the only reason I give him the slight edge over Kobe...the bad boy Pistons, the fucking 92 Knicks....those were some gotdam hard ass pipe hitting muthafuckas...man listen I used to hang with my fam in NYC back in those days and I'm telling that Pistons team and that Knick team on defense was a muthafucka...and MJ got through it...

Now as for the offensive side of the ball...he CERTAINLY played in a watered down league when he won his titles...Listen Reggie Miller was the only stud to really give it to MJ..and MJ used to cheat against Reggie all the time..he had the refs in his pockets..man Reggie all he needed was one player on his squad with some heart and MJ might dam neat be ringless..if not he would likely only have 2 or 3 the other half would have went to Reggie... MJ never faced night in and night out top scorers in the league like today...the 1's, 2's and 3's man these cats be lighting it up..MJ had no one to really go back at him..and please save the Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing comparisons....Reggie Miller was MJ's only real competition and even then the refs still had to cheat for MJ...:lol
Good shit tbh. You watch your basketball in the 90's fosho.

[spurraider21]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=jordami01&p2=millere01

[RsxPiimp]

are the miami heat truly a big 3? was bosh's 12/7 on 46% shooting good enough to qualify there?

Yeah he counts. His value goes beyond numbers.

[Koolaid_Man]

Crofl 09 Magic
00 Pacers
01 76ers
02 Nets
04 Pistons (and lost :lol)

any person with more than scrambled eggs between their ears knows the true Finals was always played at the WCF level...it was always a foregone conclusion the West would win...nothing negates MJ never facing more than a Reggie Miller on a nightly basis...A Reggie Miller with no real help at that...when MJ had his chance to prove himself in the 80's he failed miserablyPERIOD!

[Michael Jordan.]

any person with more than scrambled eggs between their ears knows the true Finals was always played at the WCF level...it was always a foregone conclusion the West would win...nothing negates MJ never facing more than a Reggie Miller on a nightly basis...A Reggie Miller with no real help at that...when MJ had his chance to prove himself in the 80's he failed miserablyPERIOD!
:lol shifting the goalposts
:lol ignoring the watered down Nets, 6ers, Pistons, Magic, and Pacers.

[Koolaid_Man]

:lol shifting the goalposts
:lol ignoring the watered down Nets, 6ers, Pistons, Magic, and Pacers.

no worse than any competition MJ faced in the finals...

[JoeTait75]

Of course the league was watered down during MJ's prime. Adding six new teams in eight years naturally diluted the talent pool. In a strong, balanced league do the 1995-96 Bulls win 72 games with Luc Longley as their starting center?

Not to mention the East was by far the weaker conference after the decline of the Bad Boys. Of all the East teams that Chicago beat in the playoffs during its second three-peat, only the '98 Pacers would have had a chance to beat the West champion in a seven-game series, IMO. Neither Miami nor New York could have hung w/the best of the West. Neither, for that matter, could the early-90's Cavaliers.

And I watched plenty of NBA ball during the '90s and as a Cavaliers fan, plenty of MJ and the Bulls.

[Captivus]

I think last season was the weakest of them all...I mean...the Lakers went to the POs!! Talk about a watered down league!

[Koolaid_Man]

Of course the league was watered down during MJ's prime. Adding six new teams in eight years naturally diluted the talent pool. In a strong, balanced league do the 1995-96 Bulls win 72 games with Luc Longley as their starting center?

Not to mention the East was by far the weaker conference after the decline of the Bad Boys. Of all the East teams that Chicago beat in the playoffs during its second three-peat, only the '98 Pacers would have had a chance to beat the West champion in a seven-game series, IMO. Neither Miami nor New York could have hung w/the best of the West. Neither, for that matter, could the early-90's Cavaliers.

And I watched plenty of NBA ball during the '90s and as a Cavaliers fan, plenty of MJ and the Bulls.

thanks for backing me up old man

[Michael Jordan.]

I think last season was the weakest of them all...I mean...the Lakers went to the POs!! Talk about a watered down league!
http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/Antonio-Banderas-computer-you-got-me-yospos-reaction-13677939419.gif

[ambchang]

Good shit tbh. You watch your basketball in the 90's fosho.

Drexler, dumars, magic, Blackman, mullins, richmond.

Proof neither of you watched 90s ball

[ambchang]

any person with more than scrambled eggs between their ears knows the true Finals was always played at the WCF level...it was always a foregone conclusion the West would win...nothing negates MJ never facing more than a Reggie Miller on a nightly basis...A Reggie Miller with no real help at that...when MJ had his chance to prove himself in the 80's he failed miserablyPERIOD!
Like 04?

[lefty]

JoeTait still hates MJ foe destroying the city of Cleveland :lol

[RsxPiimp]

Drexler, dumars, magic, Blackman, mullins, richmond.

Proof neither of you watched 90s ball

drexler was good but he wasn't anything special. dumars was good in the late 80's. magic had a short stint in the 90's. mullins was really good i'll give him that, for a white dude especially.

richmond was good but he was truly one dimensional :lol


blackman, as in rolando blackman? dude made his career in the 80's not 90's, check your facts son :lol

[RsxPiimp]

seriously amb, with the exception of drexler and mullins all the players you mentioned were actually on the down slope of their careers in the 90's. :lol and no richmond doesnt count, he was satisfied putting his stats in sacramento after his warrior days :lol

[MolaMola790]

What about David Robinson?

[JoeTait75]

JoeTait still hates MJ foe destroying the city of Cleveland :lol

It was two decades ago, the Bulls had the better team and the Cavaliers were never good enough to win the title anyway. I'm not even bitter about LeBron, why would I be bitter about MJ?

Actually, it'd be more in my interest to build up MJ as much as possible so I can at least say the Cavaliers got beat by the GOAT.

[lefty]

I think last season was the weakest of them all...I mean...the Lakers went to the POs!! Talk about a watered down league!
http://i.imgflip.com/20jkp.gif

[Buddy Mignon]

With addition of a couple of teams and the subtraction of 3 all time great teams rebuilding... I'd say yes. Lakers, Boston and Pistons were toast. In came a ton of young talent and MJ was in his prime.

[cesare borgia]

Michael Jordan Untouchable
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9M-KCulzJqg

Michael Jordan Untouchable 2
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlfiMDUTQ4

It's so obvious that Jordan played in a water down league.

[Kidd K]

:lol Bullshit.... the shortened 3-point line was in place from 1994-95 to 1996-97.... that includes the Bulls' 72-win season, when Jordan "coincidentally" shot and made threes at the highest rate of his career, doubling his previous career highs....

Jordan Jockers are too funny :lol

So you disagree that MJ only played a single full season with the shortended 3pt line? You're acting as if a huge portion of his career was spent under those rules. Jordan didn't play in 1994-1995. He only played 17 games at the end of 95-96. So with the 82 games of 96-97, that's 99 games. Out of 1,072. Less than 10%.

So I'm not sure how my pointing out how little time he spent under those rules is somehow "bullshit" when it's a fact, or "funny" since I posted the info you intentionally left out. Those are the facts. The only thing funny is you being upset that I posted the rest of the information to make your point look as bad as it should've looked in the first place had you actually included the facts of how little time he spent with the shortened line.

[Sean Cagney]

There is not much to imagine, they would not participate. Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant would never win a ring during that era unless paired with a dominant player such as Hakeem or Shaq.

You might very well be correct. The great Knicks teams of the 90's did not get one because of that namely! I think the Suns win one as well if they don't face that Bulls team (Sonics too). They stopped so many teams from ringing it was crazy. If Jordan did not retire Hakeem might not have had one ring, think about that. He could have very well 8 peated.

[Sean Cagney]

Of course the league was watered down during MJ's prime. Adding six new teams in eight years naturally diluted the talent pool. In a strong, balanced league do the 1995-96 Bulls win 72 games with Luc Longley as their starting center?

Not to mention the East was by far the weaker conference after the decline of the Bad Boys. Of all the East teams that Chicago beat in the playoffs during its second three-peat, only the '98 Pacers would have had a chance to beat the West champion in a seven-game series, IMO. Neither Miami nor New York could have hung w/the best of the West. Neither, for that matter, could the early-90's Cavaliers.

And I watched plenty of NBA ball during the '90s and as a Cavaliers fan, plenty of MJ and the Bulls.
Bullshit, New York went to 7 games vs the Rockets and could have even won it if they did not choke the last two at home! That NY team was tough! They could have won a title in those years against a West team, period. Jordans Bulls though were the cream of the crop obviously, but the Knicks were stacked and a very physical team.

[Phillip]

I think the league had a good amount of talent, but there wasn't nearly as much talent that played at MJs position as do today. There have been a LOT of incredible swingmen over the past decade, however when MJ was in the league, particularly in the 90s, it was a very thin pool.

[Pelicans78]

:lol Bullshit.... the shortened 3-point line was in place from 1994-95 to 1996-97.... that includes the Bulls' 72-win season, when Jordan "coincidentally" shot and made threes at the highest rate of his career, doubling his previous career highs....

Jordan Jockers are too funny :lol

He won 69 games the year after. Plus Kidd K didn't say anything that wasn't true. You basically agreed with him.

[Pelicans78]

Of course the league was watered down during MJ's prime. Adding six new teams in eight years naturally diluted the talent pool. In a strong, balanced league do the 1995-96 Bulls win 72 games with Luc Longley as their starting center?

Not to mention the East was by far the weaker conference after the decline of the Bad Boys. Of all the East teams that Chicago beat in the playoffs during its second three-peat, only the '98 Pacers would have had a chance to beat the West champion in a seven-game series, IMO. Neither Miami nor New York could have hung w/the best of the West. Neither, for that matter, could the early-90's Cavaliers.

And I watched plenty of NBA ball during the '90s and as a Cavaliers fan, plenty of MJ and the Bulls.

The East was watered down in MJ's second 3-peat after Shaq left for LA. Even then, the Bulls pounded Shaq's Orlando team which was talented. The 97 Knicks were underrated. A very deep team that would have given the Bulls a tougher matchup compared to the Heat if not for the brawl started by PJ Brown. That team would have given any team in the West trouble. The Knicks team won 57 games and could have battled any of the Western teams.

[lefty]

The East was watered down in MJ's second 3-peat after Shaq left for LA. Even then, the Bulls pounded Shaq's Orlando team which was talented. The 97 Knicks were underrated. A very deep team that would have given the Bulls a tougher matchup compared to the Heat if not for the brawl started by PJ Brown. That team would have given any team in the West trouble. The Knicks team won 57 games and could have battled any of the Western teams.
Lets not forget the 98 Pacers

Toughest opponents MJ ever faced in any 3peat run

[Pelicans78]

Lets not forget the 98 Pacers

Toughest opponents MJ ever faced in any 3peat run

I agree, but I think the 97 Knicks would have given them a battle as well.

[Pelicans78]

Jordan had some of his best seasons statistically in the 80s. He was a monster, but his team wasn't good enough to compete with the Celtics or Pistons. They were much more loaded.

[lefty]

I agree, but I think the 97 Knicks would have given them a battle as well.
I think the Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 97

They were on fire in those playoffs, very confident and would have matched up very well with Chicago (and LJ was still healthy)


Of course, Riley knew what he was doing as he expected his former team to clear the bench :lol

Fucking BS, Miami shouldnt have advanced

[Pelicans78]

I think the Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 97

They were on fire in those playoffs, very confident and would have matched up very well with Chicago (and LJ was still healthy)


Of course, Riley knew what he was doing as he expected his former team to clear the bench :lol

Fucking BS, Miami shouldnt have advanced

It would have been a great series. They cost the Bulls another 70 win season by wining a great OT game in Chicago in the season finale. They were on fire and definitely deserved to be in the ECFs instead of the Heat. They had a lot of talent. Sucks how we all were robbed of a great ECFs.

[RsxPiimp]

Lets not forget the 98 Pacers

Toughest opponents MJ ever faced in any 3peat run

Yeah. Payton however was Jordans toughest matchup. He shot 41% in the series.

[ambchang]

drexler was good but he wasn't anything special. dumars was good in the late 80's. magic had a short stint in the 90's. mullins was really good i'll give him that, for a white dude especially.

richmond was good but he was truly one dimensional :lol


blackman, as in rolando blackman? dude made his career in the 80's not 90's, check your facts son :lol

Drexler was one of the best 2 guards of all time. Ranking behind Jordan, west and Kobe. He was better than carter and mcgrady and was and most definitely better than miller.

I don't really care if the players played in the 80s or 90s. Jordan faced them all, starting in 1985.

It's like saying Kobe failed against Nash in the mid 00s because that's the best stretch of Nash's career and Kobe couldn't go through him.

Richmond can post up, shoot and drive. How is that one dimensional?

[That's Funked Up]

Jordan's Eastern Conference>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lebron's eastern conference

[ambchang]

I think the league had a good amount of talent, but there wasn't nearly as much talent that played at MJs position as do today. There have been a LOT of incredible swingmen over the past decade, however when MJ was in the league, particularly in the 90s, it was a very thin pool.

The league changed the rules to make this perimeter all stars. There really aren't any questions about that. Look at the huge jump in stats for perimeter players like iverson, carter and Kobe in the 00-01 season, especially fga.

[DMX7]

http://www.michaeljordanpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Michael-Jordan-6-Championships-Parade.jpg

Ah.. the days of the ridiculous looking Oakley sunglasses.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While Moses Malone and others entered the league early before Jordan's time it was not the norm that it is today. For the most part the NBA had a much better developmental league in the NCAA where players stayed for 3+ years. Kobe and Garnett were on the vanguard of the staright out of HS movement. The Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, Knicks, Blazers, Rockets, Jazz, Suns, etc teams that he faced were chock full of guys that came into the NBA prepared to play from their rookie year onwards. Nowadays you have a slew of 'young' teams chock full of 20 year olds that lack skill.

Teams also stayed together longer.

If you want a watered down era in NBA history look to the 1970s when half of the worlds talent was playing in the ABA.

[lebomb]

I think the league had a good amount of talent, but there wasn't nearly as much talent that played at MJs position as do today. There have been a LOT of incredible swingmen over the past decade, however when MJ was in the league, particularly in the 90s, it was a very thin pool.

LMAO!!!!! You dont know WTF you are talking about.......Look at the centers in the 90's

Hakeem
Shaq
David Robinson
Patrick Ewing
Alonzo Mourning
Dikembe Mutombo
Rik SMits
Brad Daugherty
Vlade Divac
Elden Campbell......kinda pushing it

Those players you are talking about on the wing would not even get to the hole half as much as they do now. There are like 2 good centers in the NBA today. I think its watered down now.

[Clipper Nation]

He won 69 games the year after. Plus Kidd K didn't say anything that wasn't true. You basically agreed with him.
He claimed the shortened three-point line didn't affect Jordan, but it clearly did, considering he had his best three-point shooting years with the shortened line.... when the line got moved back again, his percentage from three plummeted to 23.8% and the Bulls "only" won 62 games....

The shortened line also helped Pippen's numbers, which in turn helped Jordan even more, tbh....

[Phillip]

LMAO!!!!! You dont know WTF you are talking about.......Look at the centers in the 90's

Hakeem
Shaq
David Robinson
Patrick Ewing
Alonzo Mourning
Dikembe Mutombo
Rik SMits
Brad Daugherty
Vlade Divac
Elden Campbell......kinda pushing it

Those players you are talking about on the wing would not even get to the hole half as much as they do now. There are like 2 good centers in the NBA today. I think its watered down now.

Okay, so what does that have to do with what I said? I merely said that there was a thin pool of talent at the swingman positions. I said nothing about the league being watered down, nor did I say anything about big men in the league. I ONLY said that there was less talent at MJ's position when he was playing.

:rollin utsa education making you incapable of comprehending 2 sentences

[Rogue]

The game itself has changed drastically over the past decade imho. Centers ain't no longer belonging in the center stage, like godfather Riley said, the trend of modern basketball is making up a team of all 6'5 and 6'6 guys. Big-oriented games belonged to the 20th century and the early half of the 2000s but their time is already gone imho

[Phillip]

The league changed the rules to make this perimeter all stars. There really aren't any questions about that. Look at the huge jump in stats for perimeter players like iverson, carter and Kobe in the 00-01 season, especially fga.

I don't believe in all the rule change hype. Good players find ways to be good no matter what the rule changes are. And people still hand check anyways, so I don't find that to be a very good excuse.

The reason for the increase in swingmen/perimeter players is one reason only - Michael Jordan. Every one of these players grew up watching MJ, and wanting to be just like MJ. Unfortunately, many of them also forget how much importance he placed on fundamentals and hard work in practice. They just saw the highlight reel dunks and the high degree of difficulty shots he was capable of making, and wanted to imitate those things, instead of focusing on what he truly did best, which was playing smart, fundamental basketball predicated on high percentage shots. There is a reason that probably the most similar thing we have gotten to MJ is Kobe, and that is because of his comparable work ethic. Even then, he still never has quite matched up to MJ mentally.

[lebomb]

That is why the game is weaker Rogue..........you throw some good centers back into the NBA, and all that driving and slashing to the basket shit will disappear. Imagine OKC and their high powered offense trying to score against the Knicks, Bulls, or Pistons of the 90's. Are you kidding me? GOOD 7 footers in the middle, and Good 6-10" power forwards cutting off the lanes. Yeah right..... 6-5/6-6 basketball teams. I would love to play this shit back in the 90's. Ole school would OWN. Imho of course.

[Phillip]

The game itself has changed drastically over the past decade imho. Centers ain't no longer belonging in the center stage, like godfather Riley said, the trend of modern basketball is making up a team of all 6'5 and 6'6 guys. Big-oriented games belonged to the 20th century and the early half of the 2000s but their time is already gone imho

The increase in athleticism, and the increase in defensive strategy is a big reason why big men aren't as popular or as useful as they used to be IMO. Defense wasn't really played very well until real late in the 80s, going into the 90s. As defensive strategy increased, and player athletic ability increased, it made it harder for big men to dominate in the low post like they used to. It's getting to the point that if you can't shoot and handle the ball with any kind of decency, you probably won't succeed very well as a big man.

[AchillesHeel]

a watered down era that featured
Hakeem
Magic
Bird
McHale
Malone
Stockton
Drexler
Dr J
Shaq
Penny
Zo
Payton
Ewing
Robinson
Barkley
Rodman
Isiah
Nique

:rollin

[Phillip]

That is why the game is weaker Rogue..........you throw some good centers back into the NBA, and all that driving and slashing to the basket shit will disappear. Imagine OKC and their high powered offense trying to score against the Knicks, Bulls, or Pistons of the 90's. Are you kidding me? GOOD 7 footers in the middle, and Good 6-10" power forwards cutting off the lanes. Yeah right..... 6-5/6-6 basketball teams. I would love to play this shit back in the 90's. Ole school would OWN. Imho of course.

Goes both ways. The 80s and 90s didn't have to deal with as many exceptional talents out on the perimeter like there are today. The few good perimeter players that were in the league back then, were pretty dominant. There are far more now.

[Rogue]

Small ball still struggles against teams with elite bigs standing in the mid, like Miami who always need 6-7 games to eliminate the Pacers, or 6 games to melt themselves down in front of the 11' mavs. But the trend is going that way anyway... quality bigs are being extinct soon, there will still be big niggas playing in the league, grabbing rebounds and earning bread for their families that each contain 9-10 kids on average. But you're probably never gonna see any team making offensive plan around a big guy like the Spurs. Bosh was an offense-oriented player like every franchise player back in the toronto days, but he's gradually being transformed into a defensive big in Miami it seems like. Big's duty will be limited to playing D, blocking shots and collecting boards, but you can never write the name of a defensive big like Ben and Daddy TC in the same line with the likes of D-Rob and Dream imho (Bill Russell being an exception though)

[Phillip]

Small ball still struggles against teams with elite bigs standing in the mid, like Miami who always need 6-7 games to eliminate the Pacers, or 6 games to melt themselves down in front of the 11' mavs. But the trend is going that way anyway... quality bigs are being extinct soon, there will still be big niggas playing in the league, grabbing rebounds and earning bread for their families that each contain 9-10 kids on average. But you're probably never gonna see any team making offensive plan around a big guy like the Spurs. Bosh was an offense-oriented player like every franchise player back in the toronto days, but he's gradually being transformed into a defensive big in Miami it seems like. Big's duty will be limited to playing D, blocking shots and collecting boards, but you can never write the name of a defensive big like Ben and Daddy TC in the same line with the likes of D-Rob and Dream imho (Bill Russell being an exception though)

Sometimes. Small ball sometimes also can give teams with big lineups trouble as well. Like the 06 Mavs beating the 06 Spurs, Or the 07 Warriors beating the 07 Mavs.

I agree that generally, teams with elite bigs will beat small ball teams, but a good small ball team gives those teams more trouble than we think.

[AchillesHeel]

MJ,Bird,Hakeem,Magic,Shaq are all top 10 all-time players, if Jordan is overrated, so are the others. MJ beat Magic in the Finals, he left countless all-time players ringless, Malone and Stockton would both be right there in the top 15 range had they won in 96 and 97, they dominated in the 90s and even in the early 2000s, Malone at 39 was still putting up 20 and 8 a game, Stockton at 39 still put up 13 and 8 with 2 steals, all the greats from MJ's era excelled in the 2000s, especially Kobe, when handchecking became illegal and he put up 35 ppg + many other perimeter player's scoring increased by a huge margin in 05, when rules were changed on D.

If anything, the modern era is pussified and you're not allowed to play physically on D and players get technicals for staring at others.

If anything, the league has gotten worse. Dwight Howard has dominated most of his career and he has 0 post game and can't hit FT's to save his life, guys might be more "athletic", but they're less talented in terms of basketball knowledge and creating their own shot. Pace is slower so the defense seems to be better, but in reality it isn't that much different. The game has evolved and stats are more advanced and injuries that used to be career-ending are now treatable but as far as talent goes it's not there.

[Rogue]

I think the change of rules and the spontanous change of the game itself are just like your two legs (or the pair of crutches for you, Phillip). They're advancing at basically the same pace so the whole shit can be moving forward steadily and smoothly, and the league also has to make or change those rules in correspondence with the change of the game imho

[monosylab1k]

The league isn't any more watered down as far as talent goes, imho. The influx of international players in the past decade has kept the overall talent level the same. It's just the game itself that's changed. Teams are less physical but more athletic overall than in the past. While true post play is almost nonexistent now, i think perimeter players are far more creative in finding ways to get to the basket.

[monosylab1k]

Also while defense is less physical now, it's also much more sophisticated strategically.

[Phillip]

The league isn't any more watered down as far as talent goes, imho. The influx of international players in the past decade has kept the overall talent level the same. It's just the game itself that's changed. Teams are less physical but more athletic overall than in the past. While true post play is almost nonexistent now, i think perimeter players are far more creative in finding ways to get to the basket.


Also while defense is less physical now, it's also much more sophisticated strategically.

this tbh

[ambchang]

I don't believe in all the rule change hype. Good players find ways to be good no matter what the rule changes are. And people still hand check anyways, so I don't find that to be a very good excuse.

The reason for the increase in swingmen/perimeter players is one reason only - Michael Jordan. Every one of these players grew up watching MJ, and wanting to be just like MJ. Unfortunately, many of them also forget how much importance he placed on fundamentals and hard work in practice. They just saw the highlight reel dunks and the high degree of difficulty shots he was capable of making, and wanted to imitate those things, instead of focusing on what he truly did best, which was playing smart, fundamental basketball predicated on high percentage shots. There is a reason that probably the most similar thing we have gotten to MJ is Kobe, and that is because of his comparable work ethic. Even then, he still never has quite matched up to MJ mentally.

It really isn't a believe or not believe thing, it's actually in the stats. The premier perimeter players of the early 00s (Carter, Iverson and Kobe) all saw a step jump in FGAs and points scored in 00-01 season. Players such as Wade, who was only drafted 5th instead of 2nd or 3rd as he had a suspect perimeter game, benefited greatly from the rule changes, and back in 03, teams still hadn't caught on with the effects and failed to draft him earlier than players like Melo or Bosh (Darko was just a mistake).

As for imitating Jordan, I actually thought it's the other way around. You see a glut of Jordan wannabes, and the league recognized it too. Some of them have real talent, but none of them are Jordan, so they opened up the perimeter and let the perimeter guys score to avoid that mid 90's Knicks/Heat, late 90's/early 00's Spurs grind it down to a halt defense. The league wasn't even secretive about it, they stated explicitly that the rule changes was to open up the offense. The shorter three point line actually made things worse as teams can now crowd the middle easier, so the league went back to the 24'9" line, and they finally found that opening up the perimeter for penetration works the best.

[Leetonidas]

tbh the SG has been pretty watered down in the 2000s, not sure who all these incredible swingmen are. Outside of Kobe, Wade, Carter, and to a lesser extent, Iverson, who are these incredible swingmen? I mean I can think of a lot of decent SGs in the last ten years but not a lot of great ones

[JamStone]

Not sure why some people are listing great players who played in the 1990s. It's still a team game. There are great players in every decade. To me, whether the league is watered down or not relates to the quality of team competition in the league, not the amount of talented individual players. There have been plenty of great players who did not play on great teams. But more relevant question is whether there were a number of other great teams during the time. That's more pertinent.

Was the league watered down in Jordan's era? I think maybe a little bit in the first threepeat run, with the age and decline of the Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons. And heavy expansion in the mid 90s probably aided in regular season win totals for that second threepeat, but probably didn't really affect the playoff landscape. But Jordan's run is still pretty impressive even if it was in a slightly watered down league. Winning three in a row is no joke. Threepeating twice is pretty ridiculous. There were a few solid teams along the way as well, from the Jazz to the Knicks to the Cavs to Shaq/Penny for a season before Shaq left. Maybe watered down, but it's not like the Bulls were beating St. Margaret's father and daughter recreational Sunday league.

I do agree about today's NBA being watered down too, in a way. Michael Jordan gave birth to isolation basketball as a standard NBA practice. Less emphasis on ball movement and team offense. And then you add the explosion of AAU basketball along with the mid 90s to early 2000s run on high school draftees who all thought they were the next Michael Jordan, even if they were 6'10 and 250, and we began to see a league full of 18-20 year old Jordan wannabes with less refined games and multi-million dollar contracts until they either learned some refinement or washed out of the league. Oh where are you now Darius Miles? There were fewer guys who knew they were role players and played their roles well. Guys like Derek Fisher, Bruce Bowen, even Shane Battier were rare breeds, but also have been valuable pieces to championship teams. Everyone wanted to be Michael Jackson. No one wanted to be Tito.

But we've seen without that Jordan type talent, like a Shaq or a Duncan or a LeBron, it doesn't matter if you have a lot of good talent on the team if they don't know how to play basketball the right way. I think before the influx of 18-19 year old kids in the draft, high lottery picks were not only expected to play and produce right away, but they were expected to immediately make the team significantly better. Now, a team gets a top 5 pick, and they might be back in the lottery the next 2-3 seasons anyway. I think that's part of the reason we've seen teams whose core players are much older can still be legitimate contenders. Spurs and Mavs and Celtics over the last several seasons were hanging right in there with the younger teams. And they probably were the type of teams that were the most competitive for the Heat.

[ambchang]

All this talk about these superior SG talent of today ... please let me remind you. The best SG today is James Harden, with washed up Kobe and Wade as 2nd and 3rd, depending on who you want to choose first.

Will you choose these guys over Jordan and Drexler?

Even if you reverse it back to the mid 00s, there was Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Carter, and AI (If you count him as a 2 guard).

The 80's / 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Lewis, Sidney Moncrief, Rolando Blackman, Glen Rice, Penny Hardaway, and Grant Hill.

Jordan >>>>> Kobe
Drexler >=Wade
Prime Hardaway = T-Mac
Prime Hill >= Carter
AI >= Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway.

[JamStone]

All this talk about these superior SG talent of today ... please let me remind you. The best SG today is James Harden, with washed up Kobe and Wade as 2nd and 3rd, depending on who you want to choose first.

Will you choose these guys over Jordan and Drexler?

Even if you reverse it back to the mid 00s, there was Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Carter, and AI (If you count him as a 2 guard).

The 80's / 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Lewis, Sidney Moncrief, Rolando Blackman, Glen Rice, Penny Hardaway, and Grant Hill.

Jordan >>>>> Kobe
Drexler >=Wade
Prime Hardaway = T-Mac
Prime Hill >= Carter
AI >= Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway.

Glen Rice and Grant hill were mainly SFs, unless you want to add LeBron and Durant and Melo to the 2000s list.

And your 80s/90s list is two decades versus less than a decade to your Mid 2000s to current list. Not particularly equal footing you're comparing. Jordan's 2-guard contemporaries in the mid 90s during his championship run were Drexler, Reggie Miller, Penny, Craig Ehlo, John Starks, Dan Majerle, Jeff Hornacek, Vernon Maxwell. You can add the younger SGs during that time like Eddie Jones and Michael Finley.

In the 2000s, Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Vince are a pretty strong SG group. They're all old and finished now. But that's pretty strong. And in the mid 2000s, you also had guys like Ray Allen, Rip Hamilton, Ginobili, pre-injury Brandon Roy. It's only been in the last few seasons that the SG position has gotten extremely weak.

[Phillip]

It really isn't a believe or not believe thing, it's actually in the stats. The premier perimeter players of the early 00s (Carter, Iverson and Kobe) all saw a step jump in FGAs and points scored in 00-01 season. Players such as Wade, who was only drafted 5th instead of 2nd or 3rd as he had a suspect perimeter game, benefited greatly from the rule changes, and back in 03, teams still hadn't caught on with the effects and failed to draft him earlier than players like Melo or Bosh (Darko was just a mistake).

So you are saying that guys like Carter, Iverson, Kobe, Pierce, TMac, Wade, and probably another 10-20 elite perimeter players would have been pretty much average or just above average before the rule changes? You must be joking.

There is no question that it was simply a matter of more talented perimeter players coming into the league that led to increased perimeter play, as opposed to rule changes that are never enforced, like hand checking.


As for imitating Jordan, I actually thought it's the other way around. You see a glut of Jordan wannabes, and the league recognized it too. Some of them have real talent, but none of them are Jordan, so they opened up the perimeter and let the perimeter guys score to avoid that mid 90's Knicks/Heat, late 90's/early 00's Spurs grind it down to a halt defense. The league wasn't even secretive about it, they stated explicitly that the rule changes was to open up the offense. The shorter three point line actually made things worse as teams can now crowd the middle easier, so the league went back to the 24'9" line, and they finally found that opening up the perimeter for penetration works the best.

If opening up the perimeter for penetration was their focus, why do they 1) almost never enforce the hand checking rule, and 2) why did they make a rule change to allow zone defense? If their focus was entirely to help out the perimeter players, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make a rule change to allow a type of defense that is entirely focused on minimizing penetration.

The "rule change" crutch is a load of crap.

[Phillip]

All this talk about these superior SG talent of today ... please let me remind you. The best SG today is James Harden, with washed up Kobe and Wade as 2nd and 3rd, depending on who you want to choose first.

Will you choose these guys over Jordan and Drexler?

Even if you reverse it back to the mid 00s, there was Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Carter, and AI (If you count him as a 2 guard).

The 80's / 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Lewis, Sidney Moncrief, Rolando Blackman, Glen Rice, Penny Hardaway, and Grant Hill.

Jordan >>>>> Kobe
Drexler >=Wade
Prime Hardaway = T-Mac
Prime Hill >= Carter
AI >= Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway.

It's not so much about SGs, as opposed to players in general who have great perimeter games. Sure, technically Kevin Durant is a SF, but we all know he plays a SG style. What's funny how you list Grant Hill, yet leave out a guy like Lebron.

I would put guys like Durant, Pierce, Westbrook, Iverson all in that category, even though they aren't technically SGs. They are dominant offensive players who generally work on the perimeter, much like MJ. Although MJ over time started to work much more in the post than the perimeter, playing more of a SF style of play. Even more reason to widen the boundaries of players to include in the discussion.

[Leetonidas]

If we're talking about pure perimeter players then I'd agree the current league is superior to the 90s overall.

[ambchang]

Glen Rice and Grant hill were mainly SFs, unless you want to add LeBron and Durant and Melo to the 2000s list.

And your 80s/90s list is two decades versus less than a decade to your Mid 2000s to current list. Not particularly equal footing you're comparing. Jordan's 2-guard contemporaries in the mid 90s during his championship run were Drexler, Reggie Miller, Penny, Craig Ehlo, John Starks, Dan Majerle, Jeff Hornacek, Vernon Maxwell. You can add the younger SGs during that time like Eddie Jones and Michael Finley.

In the 2000s, Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Vince are a pretty strong SG group. They're all old and finished now. But that's pretty strong. And in the mid 2000s, you also had guys like Ray Allen, Rip Hamilton, Ginobili, pre-injury Brandon Roy. It's only been in the last few seasons that the SG position has gotten extremely weak.

IMHO, a pre-injury Grant Hill measures up to Durant and Melo anyday, but then I would put in Pippen as well.

I put in Rice and Hill because, as much as they were SF, their roles on the team was very much like a SG.

Ray Allen had a little bit of overlap in the Jordan era as well, and is probably comparable to a prime Dumars or a prime Richmond.

Eddie Jones and Finley were about Majerle/Starks level players, maybe slightly better.

Ginobili is about a Reggie Lewis equivalent (one oft-injured, the other died tragically)

Roy and Penny are about the same level (both careers cut short by injuries).

Point is, the perimeter player quality is pretty much even in the two eras. The current crop of two-guards are actually quite weak by comparisons.

[ambchang]

So you are saying that guys like Carter, Iverson, Kobe, Pierce, TMac, Wade, and probably another 10-20 elite perimeter players would have been pretty much average or just above average before the rule changes? You must be joking.

I think average would be stretching it, they would still have been all-stars, but they wouldn't enjoy that sudden step up in the 00-01 season that they saw without the rule changes, and the subsequent sustained improvement in their statistics thereafter.


There is no question that it was simply a matter of more talented perimeter players coming into the league that led to increased perimeter play, as opposed to rule changes that are never enforced, like hand checking.

Hand checking was enforced. Players like Mario Elie and Jaren Jackson were deemed useless after the hand-checking rule because they could no longer guard anyone with their slow foot-speeds.


If opening up the perimeter for penetration was their focus, why do they 1) almost never enforce the hand checking rule, and 2) why did they make a rule change to allow zone defense? If their focus was entirely to help out the perimeter players, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make a rule change to allow a type of defense that is entirely focused on minimizing penetration.

The "rule change" crutch is a load of crap.

I am not sure why you would kept saying the hand checking rule was not enforced. It was more definitely stricter than the 90s, when players were grabbed and held constantly. As for the zone defense rules, it's not been overly effective, and actually allows teams to take out a big man on defense which allows small ball and high octane offense.


It's not so much about SGs, as opposed to players in general who have great perimeter games. Sure, technically Kevin Durant is a SF, but we all know he plays a SG style. What's funny how you list Grant Hill, yet leave out a guy like Lebron.

I would put guys like Durant, Pierce, Westbrook, Iverson all in that category, even though they aren't technically SGs. They are dominant offensive players who generally work on the perimeter, much like MJ. Although MJ over time started to work much more in the post than the perimeter, playing more of a SF style of play. Even more reason to widen the boundaries of players to include in the discussion.

I actually agree wit this, but I avoided another huge can of worms. Guys in the late 80s early 90s that fit in this mold includes Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Isiah Thomas, Pippen, Payton, and Mullin, maybe even Mark Price.

[RsxPiimp]

Probably the best or only good basketball conversation we had in the forum in a while. Good stuff peeps.:toast

[Phillip]

Hand checking was enforced. Players like Mario Elie and Jaren Jackson were deemed useless after the hand-checking rule because they could no longer guard anyone with their slow foot-speeds.

I am not sure why you would kept saying the hand checking rule was not enforced. It was more definitely stricter than the 90s, when players were grabbed and held constantly.

Okay, it was "enforced" for what, a year or two? Same as the "no tolerance" rules for complaining about officiating.

People handcheck, grab, hold, and all kinds of stuff today just as they used to. They are just better at hiding it, but make no mistake, the same stuff is done. Almost any time someone drives, the defender has a hand at their hip, holding them back from running past them nearly as fast. They just don't do it as obviously as in the past.


As for the zone defense rules, it's not been overly effective, and actually allows teams to take out a big man on defense which allows small ball and high octane offense.

Not overly effective? I'd say the fact that the zone defense is arguably the single biggest reason that the Mavs have been the only team to beat the Heat in a playoff series since they acquired Lebron shows just how effective it can be when used properly. The problem isn't so much with zone defense itself, as opposed to the fact that most teams aren't built to utilize a zone defense very well, so coaches don't spend time developing strategies to use one. I wouldn't say it should be a primary means of defense, but when used at the right times, it can completely change a game up. The Mavs for several years under Carlisle were able to completely change the flow of a game with just a small 3-5 minute spurt of zone defense, and was a huge reason for their success (prior to blowing up the team).




I actually agree wit this, but I avoided another huge can of worms. Guys in the late 80s early 90s that fit in this mold includes Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Isiah Thomas, Pippen, Payton, and Mullin, maybe even Mark Price.

Then that opens up for Lebron, Carmello, Pierce, Durant, Westbrook, Iverson,

[ambchang]

Okay, it was "enforced" for what, a year or two? Same as the "no tolerance" rules for complaining about officiating.

People handcheck, grab, hold, and all kinds of stuff today just as they used to. They are just better at hiding it, but make no mistake, the same stuff is done. Almost any time someone drives, the defender has a hand at their hip, holding them back from running past them nearly as fast. They just don't do it as obviously as in the past.

It is most definitely done, but not to the extent of mid/late 90s basketball. The reason scoring was so bad during that era was because defense was allowed to do things that makes it unbelievably difficult to score, and all of that perimeter defense was part of the reason.


Not overly effective? I'd say the fact that the zone defense is arguably the single biggest reason that the Mavs have been the only team to beat the Heat in a playoff series since they acquired Lebron shows just how effective it can be when used properly. The problem isn't so much with zone defense itself, as opposed to the fact that most teams aren't built to utilize a zone defense very well, so coaches don't spend time developing strategies to use one. I wouldn't say it should be a primary means of defense, but when used at the right times, it can completely change a game up. The Mavs for several years under Carlisle were able to completely change the flow of a game with just a small 3-5 minute spurt of zone defense, and was a huge reason for their success (prior to blowing up the team).

Agreed. Most teams not using it means that it's not been overly effective (I mean the implementation of the rule to the expected outcome). Teams generally do not stick together long enough, and the players have the team-first mentality to use a zone defense correctly. I know because the Spurs use zone all the time as well, but the effects on the league has not been that great overall.

It still stands that zone defense allows teams to take a lumbering big man off the floor and still run a somewhat decent defense, allowing small ball offense on the other end of the court. Pop has been forced to play the small ball line up many times with mixed results, and the change into a perimeter friendly offense is one the reasons the Spurs have moved towards an offensive team vs. a defensive team.


Then that opens up for Lebron, Carmello, Pierce, Durant, Westbrook, Iverson,

Yes, and they would still be comparable to 80s/90s talent.

[Brazil]

an actual basketball discussion in the nba forum ? wtf ?

good read

[lefty]

All this talk about these superior SG talent of today ... please let me remind you. The best SG today is James Harden, with washed up Kobe and Wade as 2nd and 3rd, depending on who you want to choose first.

Will you choose these guys over Jordan and Drexler?

Even if you reverse it back to the mid 00s, there was Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Carter, and AI (If you count him as a 2 guard).

The 80's / 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Lewis, Sidney Moncrief, Rolando Blackman, Glen Rice, Penny Hardaway, and Grant Hill.

Jordan >>>>> Kobe
Drexler >=Wade
Prime Hardaway = T-Mac
Prime Hill >= Carter
AI >= Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway.
http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/yy270/snoop512/gifs%20funny%20pics/will_smith_uh_gif.gif

[RsxPiimp]

Drexler was one of the best 2 guards of all time. Ranking behind Jordan, west and Kobe. He was better than carter and mcgrady and was and most definitely better than miller. ?

drex has been overrated for a while now, i know he's the type of player thats never been in the spotlight to begin with so it sounds like a conundrum but throughout the years especially in the 90's when the league was trying its hardest to come up with a Jordan vs _____ rivalry, clyde's name was always thrown out there with the best (jordan, magic, barkley etc) when its clear that drexler was never in that level. he was a perennial all star, a pretty good scorer (not great) but a solid rebounder for a guard. i'd take a healthy tmac and raptors vince carter over drexler for sure. i'm not downplaying his achievements because drexler was a class act who did everything well but not necessarily great but his legacy is overrated by some*





Richmond can post up, shoot and drive. How is that one dimensional?

the fact you mentioned all that and said nothing about his defense, ability to make his teammates better, proves my point. richmond was an all world scorer, but he didn't do anything much to spark his team, evident by his losing record from 91-2001. his team only made the playoffs ONCE in a span of 10 years.

[lefty]

Jordan shits on any era


End of story

[Rogue]

I think the dominance of perimeter players in the current league has as little to do with the change as rules as... the climate change. Rules were changed according to the change of the game itself to better fit the game and fan's preference, which in returns also boosted the change of the game dialectically. The change of rules was both a reason and a result of the game's change imho.

[ambchang]

http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/yy270/snoop512/gifs%20funny%20pics/will_smith_uh_gif.gif

Before Penny was injured, he had seasons of 14.4 WS and 10.7 WS. T-Mac, obviously with a longer prime, had highs of 16.1 (second highest was around 12). While McGrady was a little better, I am comfortable putting them on the same level.

Hill was dynamite in his prime, he was a mix of Jordan and Pippen. He couldn't stay healthy, but he had WS of 14.6, 11.7, 10.7 and 10.2, many coming from incomplete seasons due to injuries. Carter, on the other hand, had WS of 12.9 and 11.8 in his prime. They are relatively equal, but I just dislike Carter for what he did to Toronto. The astounding thing is, as oft-injured as Carter was, Hill was even more so. If Hill stayed healthy, he would have been a top 10 SF/SG of all time.

As for the AI, I could have just put AI > KJ, Hardaway was a stretch, I must admit. But when you look at the numbers, AI had WS highs of 11.8 and 11.6, while Kevin Johnson had 12.7, 12.2 and 11.6. People forgot how good KJ was at his prime, he was, at one time, challenging a near-prime Magic and Isiah as the best PG in the league. Again, injuries did him in, but KJ was an amazing player, it was a shame people only remember KJs side kick to Barkley years, but he was a true alpha back in the day. Not too many guys can dunk on Hakeem like that, and before McGrady rode Bradley, KJ rode Hot Rod.

Tim Hardaway, on the other hand, had WS of 12.9 and 11.7. Again, people forgot how good he was in the mid/late 90s because he played on the thug Heat at a slow pace, but he drove those Heat teams with Zo.

[ambchang]

drex has been overrated for a while now, i know he's the type of player thats never been in the spotlight to begin with so it sounds like a conundrum but throughout the years especially in the 90's when the league was trying its hardest to come up with a Jordan vs _____ rivalry, clyde's name was always thrown out there with the best (jordan, magic, barkley etc) when its clear that drexler was never in that level. he was a perennial all star, a pretty good scorer (not great) but a solid rebounder for a guard. i'd take a healthy tmac and raptors vince carter over drexler for sure. i'm not downplaying his achievements because drexler was a class act who did everything well but not necessarily great but his legacy is overrated by some*

Please tell me you are joking, because if anything, Drexler is pretty widely underrated because he played in a small market that never rang. He had seven seasons of double digit win shares with a high of 13.2. In his best season, he averaged 26/6/6, and a few other seasons of 20/6/8 25/7/5 25/6/6. Those are some very impressive seasons.

Wade had a WS high of 14.7 (should have put him above Clyde, forgot about him for a sec), Kobe 15.3. T-Mac had a higher 16.6 WS season, but he didn't have the longevity, and neither did Carter.

Reggie Miller I felt was massively overrated, likely due to his duo with Spike Lee and Jordan. He was consistent his entire career with 10 double digit WS seasons, but he had a WS high of 12.5. His longevity was great because his game that was based on stamina, position and shooting ages very well, but at no point in his career would I take him over a prime Drexler.


the fact you mentioned all that and said nothing about his defense, ability to make his teammates better, proves my point. richmond was an all world scorer, but he didn't do anything much to spark his team, evident by his losing record from 91-2001. his team only made the playoffs ONCE in a span of 10 years.

I thought you were talking about SG on the offensive side of the ball? Richmond actually averaged 3.5 apg over his career, wtih a high of 5.1, which is very respectable for a SG.

[ambchang]

I think the dominance of perimeter players in the current league has as little to do with the change as rules as... the climate change. Rules were changed according to the change of the game itself to better fit the game and fan's preference, which in returns also boosted the change of the game dialectically. The change of rules was both a reason and a result of the game's change imho.

I cannot agree to this. The majority of those perimeter friendly rule changes were made during the Shaq/Duncan/Webber/Garnett heydays. it really is no coincidence that Carter, McGrady, Pierce, Kobe and AI all saw dramatic jumps in their stats in the same season.

The league was very transparent about increasing scoring in the game, and they were obviously doing it through opening up the perimeter. This was very much known knowledge back in the day. not sure when this was some how now relegated results rather than a cause.

[JamStone]

who uses win shares and only win shares as the ultimate advanced statistic in player comparisons?

I mean if you're going to use win shares as evidence, at least additionally use win shares per 48 and PER to give a bigger picture. using ONLY win shares is such a sloppy argument.

[ambchang]

Given the players played big minutes and total games, the ws per 48 doesn't change much. Statistics wise, the players are very close. Some scorer more, some more efficiently, some had more rebounds, assists and such. The point of ws is to show their impact on the team, which ultimately is what a fan really cares about.

[JamStone]

Given the players played big minutes and total games, the ws per 48 doesn't change much. Statistics wise, the players are very close. Some scorer more, some more efficiently, some had more rebounds, assists and such. The point of ws is to show their impact on the team, which ultimately is what a fan really cares about.

Still a sloppy and lazy argument to use WS and WS only. I'd say all advanced stats, while generally useful and providing good insight, are incomplete and less useful when used by themselves in an argument without context, additional statistics, and other facts or factors.

Let's use this WS stat in another player comparison. Here are the top 5 WS seasons of four players, so it's not just each player's top 1 or 2 seasons:

Gary Payton: 13.9, 12.9, 12.6, 12.5, 11.7
Jason Kidd: 11.3, 10.1, 9.6, 9.3, 8.9
Steve Nash: 12.6, 12.4, 11.6, 10.9, 10.5
Chauncey Billups: 15.5, 13.5, 12.1, 11.4, 11.3

Now, based on your win shares argument, not only was Billups at the same level of GP and Kidd and Nash, but he had clearly been the better player than Kidd and Nash in his best seasons. And at peak, he was better than all three at each of their respective peaks. His top 4 win share seasons trump any season Kidd ever put up. Better at his peak than peak Payton and peak Kidd? Maybe you do believe he was a better player. But even as a Pistons fan, I don't think he was. Billups WS output was a big product of being on a winning team with other very good complementary players. Win shares obviously relies at least on a base level to team success as well. Billups was ball dominant on offense and his DWS was greatly aided by playing in front of Wallace/Wallace and having a strong wing defender in Prince to always take the toughest perimeter defensive assignment. I still don't know why Billups ever got NBA defensive honors. His high defensive win shares in those years do not accurately reflect his defense.

How about this comparison:

Tim Duncan's best two WS seasons: 17.8, 16.5
Karl Malone's best two WS seasons: 16.7, 16.4

Now you can see why these two based on two of their best two WS seasons can be considered among the all time greats. But also consider this. Karl Malone also put up another 7 seasons with at least a 15.0 WS. After his top two WS seasons, Tim Duncan did not put up another season with better than a 13.2 WS. Who would you say had the better overall career... based only on the WS stat? 99.9% of the basketball world acknowledges Tim Duncan as the best PF in NBA history. A WS argument, although close, would favor Karl Malone.

Or look at last season and over the careers of Tony Parker and Chris Paul. Last season, an interesting debate arose whether Tony Parker had surpassed Chris Paul as the better PG. Well based on a WS argument, it wasn't a debate at all. Last season and over the course of each of their careers, Tony Parker has never been at the same level as CP3... based on a win shares argument. Win shares don't even allow the debate to be close. I think most agree that it was at least a debate.

You see what I'm saying about using one advanced stat and one advanced stat only to make an argument? It's incomplete. It's sloppy. It's lazy. Give more context, more explanation, more additional statistical evidence. Win shares in addition to other advanced stats, basic standard stats, team dynamics, winning-losing, and other factors can be very useful. By itself, it's just another incomplete manipulation of one, single statistic to support an argument you want to present.

[lefty]

lol stats

Its not the whole story

[RsxPiimp]

Damn JamStone with the goods

[ambchang]

Still a sloppy and lazy argument to use WS and WS only. I'd say all advanced stats, while generally useful and providing good insight, are incomplete and less useful when used by themselves in an argument without context, additional statistics, and other facts or factors.

Let's use this WS stat in another player comparison. Here are the top 5 WS seasons of four players, so it's not just each player's top 1 or 2 seasons:

Gary Payton: 13.9, 12.9, 12.6, 12.5, 11.7
Jason Kidd: 11.3, 10.1, 9.6, 9.3, 8.9
Steve Nash: 12.6, 12.4, 11.6, 10.9, 10.5
Chauncey Billups: 15.5, 13.5, 12.1, 11.4, 11.3

Now, based on your win shares argument, not only was Billups at the same level of GP and Kidd and Nash, but he had clearly been the better player than Kidd and Nash in his best seasons. And at peak, he was better than all three at each of their respective peaks. His top 4 win share seasons trump any season Kidd ever put up. Better at his peak than peak Payton and peak Kidd? Maybe you do believe he was a better player. But even as a Pistons fan, I don't think he was. Billups WS output was a big product of being on a winning team with other very good complementary players. Win shares obviously relies at least on a base level to team success as well. Billups was ball dominant on offense and his DWS was greatly aided by playing in front of Wallace/Wallace and having a strong wing defender in Prince to always take the toughest perimeter defensive assignment. I still don't know why Billups ever got NBA defensive honors. His high defensive win shares in those years do not accurately reflect his defense.

How about this comparison:

Tim Duncan's best two WS seasons: 17.8, 16.5
Karl Malone's best two WS seasons: 16.7, 16.4

Now you can see why these two based on two of their best two WS seasons can be considered among the all time greats. But also consider this. Karl Malone also put up another 7 seasons with at least a 15.0 WS. After his top two WS seasons, Tim Duncan did not put up another season with better than a 13.2 WS. Who would you say had the better overall career... based only on the WS stat? 99.9% of the basketball world acknowledges Tim Duncan as the best PF in NBA history. A WS argument, although close, would favor Karl Malone.

Or look at last season and over the careers of Tony Parker and Chris Paul. Last season, an interesting debate arose whether Tony Parker had surpassed Chris Paul as the better PG. Well based on a WS argument, it wasn't a debate at all. Last season and over the course of each of their careers, Tony Parker has never been at the same level as CP3... based on a win shares argument. Win shares don't even allow the debate to be close. I think most agree that it was at least a debate.

You see what I'm saying about using one advanced stat and one advanced stat only to make an argument? It's incomplete. It's sloppy. It's lazy. Give more context, more explanation, more additional statistical evidence. Win shares in addition to other advanced stats, basic standard stats, team dynamics, winning-losing, and other factors can be very useful. By itself, it's just another incomplete manipulation of one, single statistic to support an argument you want to present.

Honestly, I was surprised at the Billups numbers, and I must say I have to re-evaluate his worth. Billups was actually an integral part of a Pistons system, and he was the driving force behind their offence. The Pistons would have been a much lesser team without Billups. But Billups have also shown to be a product of the system, and did not have the versatility of a Payton or a Kidd.

As I mentioned earlier, I have never used WS and WS only as the metric, but WS is a great tool to use in the context of an argument.

As for Duncan vs. Malone, I have addressed that in the other thread.

Finally, Paul > Parker, I wouldn't even try to argue that, and imo, it's not even debatable. Parker has always been a fantastic point guard, but I will take Paul over Parker 100 out of 100 times.