Who else is sick and tired of hearing retired players talking up their era?

[hitmantb]

Athleticism and technology seriously went way up last 20 years. Players are simply bigger/stronger/faster. This is coming from someone who started watching in the 90's.

I was watching Magic/Bird on NBA classic and honestly these guys would get smoked by Heat/Spurs of today. The athleticism difference is staggering, the current generation is so much more muscular and these old teams looked like they were playing in slow motion. With the huge jump in technology, scouting and advanced analytic, strategy and tactics are simply a lot better than before as well.

The good old days, everyone stood around and watched dominant post players go 1v1. 20 years later, spacing is premium and small ball usually beats big ball. Offense and defense has a lot more motion than ever before. Sure, defense was dirty back in the days, but defensive rotation was very poor.

Until recently I was convinced the 1999 or 2005 Spurs were the greatest Spurs teams of all time. But now? I think 2014 Spurs with 2014 Popovich has a real chance to beat either one of them with modern basketball vs dump-it-to-Duncan.

[doobs]

I generally agree, although I sometimes wonder if the improvements in a different area of technology (i.e., high-def TV) makes the game seem faster and crisper today.

[Chinook]

There were still freaks like Jordan and Kemp from that era, though. I agree, however, that today's NBA players would physically dominate their predecessors (in their respective primes) and that coaching well in today's league requires much more strategy than it did back then. Jordan had this line about only four current (at the time he said it) NBA players being able to play in his era (Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and Dirk). In reality, it's more than only the Dream Team could have really played above replacement level in this era.

I liken this to talk about Dick Butkis being the best MLB in NFL history and would be so had he played in any era. He wouldn't have even been able to make a team had he play now.

[Kidd K]

It doesn't bother me at all because the NBA was more fun to watch back in the day. The league wasn't heavily catered to flashy players with only moderate skill who bulldoze to the basket and get FTAs all night.

Small ball only beats big ball now because of the way the NBA has been changing the rules and calling games. Imagine if any of the top 5 centers of the 90's were playing now with the rules not hamstringing them. Just copy and paste their stats. LeBron would not look so special anymore. Compare LeBron's stats now to Hakeem's or DRob's or Ewing's or Shaq's or Malone's or Barkley's or Jordan's. Yeah. The 90's had like 10 LeBron's.

Play doesn't always get better. It's been on a downswing for years and the league's been altering rules to hamstring defenses so players can score easier to help them out.

[4down]

If you had given those players of yore the medical and training advances of today though...

[Mikeanaro]

Im tired of this sissy era where ¨Stars¨ gets calls for nothing dumbing the fucking game down, OP is 12 years old.

[ElNono]

It can be annoying, but probably less annoying than Reggie Miller and Barkley talking about championship experience...

[CosmicCowboy]

Basketball was a physical game back then. Normal hard fouls would be called Flagrant 2's now. The modern "put your head down and drive, run into someone, pretend you were shooting and get free throws" would have never worked back then.

[hsxvvd]

The current era is the weakest, based soley on the fact that the NBA has changed the rules to prop up the superstars.

Hand-checking, use of the forearm, shoulder, hip etc, no charge area.

All the rules that are aimed at tilting the advantage to the offensive player are what make today's players weaker than those in the past.

[CosmicCowboy]

When players flopped it was because they had just had the crap knocked out of them. Blood was normal and OK unless it made the floor slick.

[phxspurfan]

I'm not. 90s bball was way more competitive and less sissy ball. And it had Jordan.

No flopping teams like the Clippers, either

No CP3


No manufactured "stars" like Durant who shoot 30 FTs a game

Better coaches (Don Nelson, Chuck Daly, Phil, Sloan, Riley, on and on)

Hell, even the early 2000s era was less WWE (fixed) than this era. At least they didn't have only one good team in a whole conference, filled with hall of famers who didn't have the balls to lead their own teams to victory (besides Wade who did in 06).

[Baam]

Not me, wish we saw more old school players on tv instead of the same ones we always see... Was great to watch DRob and Gervin on First take.

[Virgil]

If you had given those players of yore the medical and training advances of today though...


When players flopped it was because they had just had the crap knocked out of them. Blood was normal and OK unless it made the floor slick

(Stupid) thread closed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Kermit Washington damn near killed Rudy Tomjanovich in a multi player brawl.

[vander]

wing players and guards might be getting bigger-stronger-faster but the Center position, and even PF to a lesser extent, is a complete joke now IMO

if only DRob could have played in today's NBA...

[Chinook]

People need to drop the toughness angle, in my opinion. That's the same thing NFL old-timers use to defend their era. Who cares if Butkis played on a broken leg or whatever? He still would have been trucked by current NFL running-backs.

[Malik Hairston]

90s basketball was the ugliest type of basketball you'll ever see, tbh..the only reason it was hyped up was due to Dad Killer, obviously..

The expansion era of basketball was no different than the ugly, Spurs-Pistons basketball that the media hated, the only difference was that the media and casual fans were less interested in the Spurs and Pistons than they were in the bigger name teams like the Bulls, tbh..

Even Lakers-Celtics in 2010 was one of the ugliest displays of basketball I have ever seen, embarrassing offensive style of play, but it was overshadowed by the logos on the jerseys..

It's funny, NBA fans claim to dislike selfish, isolation basketball, yet the 90s and 2000s were full of 1-on-1 basketball that requires much less skill and strategy..in fact, this past NBA season had the least isolation-oriented offenses since the 80s, statistically speaking..

[Malik Hairston]

Sure, you can dislike the "softness" of today's game, but today's game requires much more skill and strategy than ever..ball movement and systems are much more important in today's game, tbh..

The 80s and 90s had a lot of goon players that would have no chance to make it to the league if they were required to play with the same skill, strategy and ball movement of today's league, rather than just committing hard fouls and being tall like they did in their own era:lol..

[hitmanyr2k]

Athleticism and technology seriously went way up last 20 years. Plays are simply bigger/stronger/faster. This is coming from someone who started watching in the 90's. I was watching Magic/Bird on NBA classic and honestly these guys would get smoked by Heat/Spurs of today. The athleticism difference is staggering, the current generation is so much more muscular and these old teams looked like they were playing in slow motion. With the huge jump in technology, scouting and advanced analytic, strategy and tactics are simply a lot better than before as well.

You mention athleticism and muscles but don't mention skill? :nope Using your logic an old team like the Spurs shouldn't even be competitive against the likes of OKC or Miami. A slow, 37 year old geriatric in Duncan should never be able to score with athletic human shot eraser Serge Ibaka guarding him.


The good old days, everyone stood around and watched dominant post players go 1v1.

The good old days had the best of both worlds actually....good perimeter players and dominant post players like Shaq/Penny, Drexler/Olajuwon, Tim Hardaway/Mourning, Stockton/Malone, Payton/Kemp, etc. Even wing players back then were damn good post players.


20 years later, spacing is premium and small ball usually beats big ball.

That's not saying much. Have you seen the crop of big men in the NBA today? When there are no likes of Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning or Malone small ball is going to look a hell of a lot better. Who do you think Lebron and the Heat would rather face in the playoffs? A Pacer team with Shaq, Ewing or Mourning in the East or a Pacer team with Roy Hibbert :lol


Offense and defense has a lot more motion than ever before.

How do you quantify this?


Sure, defense was dirty back in the days, but defensive rotation was very poor.

Again, how do you quantify this? There will always be poor defensive teams in every era.


Until recently I was convinced the 1999 or 2005 Spurs were the greatest Spurs teams of all time. But now? I think 2014 Spurs with 2014 Popovich has a real chance to beat either one of them with modern basketball vs dump-it-to-Duncan.

What makes you think those old Spurs teams were simply dump it to Duncan? The 2005 Spurs team was perfection. They could run you out of the building with young Parker and Ginobili or slow it down and play the inside game with Prime Duncan. They had shooters galore (Ginobili, Horry, Barry, Bowen) to space the floor for Duncan to operate in the post and also open up driving lanes for Ginobili and Parker in the half court. Their defense was always good, if not great with Duncan as their anchor in the paint along with help from Nazr Mohammed and their perimeter shut down guy in Bruce Bowen. You narrowing that team down to simply "dump-it-to-Duncan" is just ignorant.

[Chinook]

Small ball only beats big ball now because of the way the NBA has been changing the rules and calling games. Imagine if any of the top 5 centers of the 90's were playing now with the rules not hamstringing them. Just copy and paste their stats. LeBron would not look so special anymore. Compare LeBron's stats now to Hakeem's or DRob's or Ewing's or Shaq's or Malone's or Barkley's or Jordan's. Yeah. The 90's had like 10 LeBron's.


I'm pretty sure that just undercuts your opinion on the matter. If more-limited players like Ewing put up stats like Lebron does now, it suggests the game was easier back then, not that those players were better. In reality, they were just two different eras, neither one being "softer" or "easier" to play in. They just had different foci. The old NBA catered to bigs, and as time went on, it's moved more toward a perimeter game. What isn't all that debatable, however, is that the players have gotten a lot stronger and faster than they were before, and that coaching has had to get smarter to balance it all out.

That doesn't make the old era less legitimate than the current era, or that it wasn't as fun to watch or whatever. But it does refute the idea that some former players have that current NBAers wouldn't dominate if they went back in a time machine. A player like Lebron James would have been a mix between the GOAT PG (Magic) and the then-GOAT PF (Malone). That doesn't even account for the fact that he can score like Jordan could and defend like Pippen could. Those legends should be glad they never had to see him in their era.

[Baam]

When Noah is in the so called best five of the year then you cant really talk shit about older eras...

[tholdren]

Athleticism and technology seriously went way up last 20 years. Plays are simply bigger/stronger/faster. This is coming from someone who started watching in the 90's.

I was watching Magic/Bird on NBA classic and honestly these guys would get smoked by Heat/Spurs of today. The athleticism difference is staggering, the current generation is so much more muscular and these old teams looked like they were playing in slow motion. With the huge jump in technology, scouting and advanced analytic, strategy and tactics are simply a lot better than before as well.

The good old days, everyone stood around and watched dominant post players go 1v1. 20 years later, spacing is premium and small ball usually beats big ball. Offense and defense has a lot more motion than ever before. Sure, defense was dirty back in the days, but defensive rotation was very poor.

Until recently I was convinced the 1999 or 2005 Spurs were the greatest Spurs teams of all time. But now? I think 2014 Spurs with 2014 Popovich has a real chance to beat either one of them with modern basketball vs dump-it-to-Duncan.


LOL at this whole concept, and just no. There are so many RULES now that NEGATE any type of defense that is played you cannot comment on who is more "athletic". Today's game is dominated by scoring points and trying to be flashy while you do it. The fans want it, so the NBA CATERS TO THAT. Do you really think a bitch like Westbrook would get half the points he does at the FT line..? Durant would be done for. Any hand check on him and his brittle 120 pound frame would crumble. AI in his prime would be 30 times the player Westbrook is now, and could you imagine Jordan? Roy Hibbert? Dwight Howard? Those guys are the biggest in this soft league and cannot dominate. Can you imagine Howard against Shaq or Wilt? Jesus. What a stupid, stupid, stupid comment.

The players may look better due to advertisements and makeup, but seriously, steph curry getting defended by gary payton... just no.

[Kidd K]

I'm pretty sure that just undercuts your opinion on the matter. If more-limited players like Ewing put up stats like Lebron does now, it suggests the game was easier back then, not that those players were better. In reality, they were just two different eras, neither one being "softer" or "easier" to play in. They just had different foci. The old NBA catered to bigs, and as time went on, it's moved more toward a perimeter game. What isn't all that debatable, however, is that the players have gotten a lot stronger and faster than they were before, and that coaching has had to get smarter to balance it all out.

That doesn't make the old era less legitimate than the current era, or that it wasn't as fun to watch or whatever. But it does refute the idea that some former players have that current NBAers wouldn't dominate if they went back in a time machine. A player like Lebron James would have been a mix between the GOAT PG (Magic) and the then-GOAT PF (Malone). That doesn't even account for the fact that he can score like Jordan could and defend like Pippen could. Those legends should be glad they never had to see him in their era.

No it doesn't, and it would only appear that way if you massively underrate the 90's and Ewing. Ewing was better than every big man today is now. He is not "limited" because he can't break ankles and average 7 assists. LeBron can't defend like Ewing or rebound like him. Their ability to put up points efficiently is similar too.

I don't think players have gotten "stronger" either; that isn't accurate. Faster, yes, stronger, no. The NBA is full of ectomorphs now like Durant. You can point to specific players like LeBron and Westbrook, but you have to look at Durant, Lee, Lin, etc. They have weak, skinny bodies. Half the leagues stars now seem to have only slightly above average male strength. NBA is stronger though? Lmao. . .I don't think so. It's smaller and weaker but faster and more protected by refs.

Yes LeBron would have been good anyway. The best player in the league should be good in any area. That point doesn't mean anything. Mix between Magic and Malone but can't compete with either at what they did. Can't pass like Magic, can't rebound and score in the post like Malone. In fact he's nothing like Malone.

I doubt they'd care about playing LeBron either. Dude would have never made the Finals in THAT east which actually had legit teams in it. Jordan's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks, Reggie's Pacers, or going back to the early 90's Isiah's Pistons. Unless LeBron could bring Wade and Bosh back in time with him, he's just another stat stuffer that couldn't win a title (Malone, Ewing, DRob pre-Duncan, Hakeem pre-Jordan retirement, etc).

[Capt Bringdown]

I was watching Magic/Bird on NBA classic and honestly these guys would get smoked by Heat/Spurs of today.
Disagree. There's nobody near the caliber of Magic/Jabbar in today's league. Magic was 6-9 ffs, and he was a f'n point guard. Jabbar would crush Duncan. James Worthy vs the likes of Danny Green and Leonard? Laughable.
Showtime Lakers would crush today's Spurs or Heat. Showtime Lakers were the best basketball team ever, IMO.

[Chinook]

No it doesn't, and it would only appear that way if you massively underrate the 90's and Ewing. Ewing was better than every big man today is now. He is not "limited" because he can't break ankles and average 7 assists. LeBron can't defend like Ewing or rebound like him. Their ability to put up points efficiently is similar too.

Yes, it does. Saying that a many 80s players put up the numbers only James can put up now undercuts your point that the 80s had better players. Your counter is baseless, no offense, because it is subjective as hell. Think about it this way: There are d-league players who average NBA superstar stats. Does that support the idea that the d-league is better, or does it undercut it? What about college players? A lot of them put up great numbers as well only to crash back to Earth in the big league. This line of reasoning is NOT intended by me to assert the league 20-30 years ago was worse than it is now. (I said that already.) It's simply to counter your logic of using relative dominance to imply absolute dominance.


I don't think players have gotten "stronger" either; that isn't accurate. Faster, yes, stronger, no. The NBA is full of ectomorphs now like Durant. You can point to specific players like LeBron and Westbrook, but you have to look at Durant, Lee, Lin, etc. They have weak, skinny bodies. Half the leagues stars now seem to have only slightly above average male strength. NBA is stronger though? Lmao. . .I don't think so. It's smaller and weaker but faster and more protected by refs.

Durant can't be your only counter, can he?


Yes LeBron would have been good anyway. The best player in the league should be good in any area. That point doesn't mean anything. Mix between Magic and Malone but can't compete with either at what they did. Can't pass like Magic, can't rebound and score in the post like Malone. In fact he's nothing like Malone.

I doubt they'd care about playing LeBron either. Dude would have never made the Finals in THAT east which actually had legit teams in it. Jordan's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks, Reggie's Pacers, or going back to the early 90's Isiah's Pistons. Unless LeBron could bring Wade and Bosh back in time with him, he's just another stat stuffer that couldn't win a title (Malone, Ewing, DRob pre-Duncan, Hakeem pre-Jordan retirement, etc).

I am not saying he has the exact games as those guys. But he can do what they did at an elite level while also being versatile. He's easily a better overall player than either were.

As far as how many titles he'd get, it'd obviously depend on where he went. Had the Spurs drafted him instead of Elliott in 1989, for example, I'm pretty sure the Spurs get multiple titles.

[Skull-1]

It doesn't bother me at all because the NBA was more fun to watch back in the day. The league wasn't heavily catered to flashy players with only moderate skill who bulldoze to the basket and get FTAs all night.

Small ball only beats big ball now because of the way the NBA has been changing the rules and calling games. Imagine if any of the top 5 centers of the 90's were playing now with the rules not hamstringing them. Just copy and paste their stats. LeBron would not look so special anymore. Compare LeBron's stats now to Hakeem's or DRob's or Ewing's or Shaq's or Malone's or Barkley's or Jordan's. Yeah. The 90's had like 10 LeBron's.

Play doesn't always get better. It's been on a downswing for years and the league's been altering rules to hamstring defenses so players can score easier to help them out.


This.

[eyeh8u]

sometimes nostalgia gets the better of us all.

[Tuddy]

No hand checking, hardly any rim protectors, way more ticky tac fouls, more travelling and especially carries allowed now but massive difference in strength and athleticism on the perimeter and much better coaching now. Really tough to compare

[Kidd K]

Yes, it does. Saying that a many 80s players put up the numbers only James can put up now undercuts your point that the 80s had better players. Your counter is baseless, no offense, because it is subjective as hell. Think about it this way: There are d-league players who average NBA superstar stats. Does that support the idea that the d-league is better, or does it undercut it? What about college players? A lot of them put up great numbers as well only to crash back to Earth in the big league. This line of reasoning is NOT intended by me to assert the league 20-30 years ago was worse than it is now. (I said that already.) It's simply to counter your logic of using relative dominance to imply absolute dominance.



Durant can't be your only counter, can he?



I am not saying he has the exact games as those guys. But he can do what they did at an elite level while also being versatile. He's easily a better overall player than either were.

As far as how many titles he'd get, it'd obviously depend on where he went. Had the Spurs drafted him instead of Elliott in 1989, for example, I'm pretty sure the Spurs get multiple titles.

The 80's? I said the 90's. And no, again, it doesn't undercut my point at all. It reinforces my point that the league now is sparse in the talent department. Every era had multiple LeBron's except this one. Players are faster but less skilled. It's all about jacking up threes and crashing into the paint for FTAs.

The rest of your first paragraph is a bunch of nonsense that in no way enhances your point or hurts mine. The players we're talking about were all NBA players who put those stats up in the NBA. The D League and college shit is irrelevant. So literally your entire point is based entirely around your opinion (unaccompanied by facts) that the 90's was worse.


I mentioned more players than Durant; it's in the post you just quoted. Feel free to provide me with a huge list of these strong powerful players if you expect me to make a list of weak ones. Since you originally made the point and I countered it with a few players, you now have the burden of proof to make your point, not me.

So far you still haven't made a point, we just know your opinion, and all your arguments are centered around how you can twist perception of what wording means (poorly too I might add). As if multiple players putting up LeBron-like numbers somehow undercuts the point that the league was better at the time. With that awful, horrendous logic, you're literally saying there's no way to argue a previous era is better since you're throwing positive stats out the window as somehow a negative, LOL. Horrible logic dude. What the fuck? I hope you have an excuse for this like being drunk.

[Chinook]

The 80's? I said the 90's. And no, again, it doesn't undercut my point at all. It reinforces my point that the league now is sparse in the talent department. Every era had multiple LeBron's except this one. Players are faster but less skilled. It's all about jacking up threes and crashing into the paint for FTAs.

The rest of your first paragraph is a bunch of nonsense that in no way enhances your point or hurts mine. The players we're talking about were all NBA players who put those stats up in the NBA. The D League and college shit is irrelevant. So literally your entire point is based entirely around your opinion (unaccompanied by facts) that the 90's was worse.

I'm sorry you're struggling to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat. You made an argument that the other era (sure, 90s. Who cares? It doesn't matter to me which era you pick, since it wouldn't change the argument from my end) was superior to this era because there were many players who dominated the league the way that only James can do now. I responded by saying that that is a poor argument. Multiple players being able to dominate an era implies the era as a whole wasn't very good, not that it was tougher. It takes a superhuman with the size of a power-forward and the skills of a point-guard to put up great numbers now. (Not true, obviously since there are others who put up great numbers. You just dismiss them.) That's a credit to this era's strength, not its weakness.

You then changed the nature of the argument to focus on the talent level. (I don't particularly care if you meant this all along; I'm not calling you out on it regardles.) It's funny how you listed only bigs besides Jordan. Does it not surprise you that all the "more talented" wings and guards fell by the wayside to the premier centers? It shouldn't, as it doesn't surprise me. I said in my first response to you that basketball has slowly evolved from a big-oriented game to a perimeter-oriented game. The most dominant bigs of all time were Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. We all know their greatness was in large part a product of their era, which besides lacking talent also lacked many of the rules in place to day which made a big's job harder for them.

Essentially, as far as impact goes, I feel that all superstars are the products of their eras. That's not to say their talent doesn't transcend era at all, but rather it's to say that the players who can most take advantage of the conditions of their eras will succeed most in it. Players like Russell would not have dominated nearly as much in the 90s with other dominant bigs to match up against. In turn the dominant bigs of the 90s would not have dominated this era, since the rule changes in their era limits what they could do. They may well have still been star players, but they would not have been any better than the Shaqs, Duncans, Gasols and Nowitskis we saw the next decade.

You seem to think I'm arguing that today's era is superior as far as competition is concerned. I'm not, and I have said so three times now. If you spent more time reading what I wrote instead of dismissing it, you'd've understood that. What I have said is that physically, today's NBA players are better than those in eras past.


I mentioned more players than Durant; it's in the post you just quoted. Feel free to provide me with a huge list of these strong powerful players if you expect me to make a list of weak ones. Since you originally made the point and I countered it with a few players, you now have the burden of proof to make your point, not me.

I'm sorry I missed your mentions of Lin and Lee, you know, because I didn't think you'd consider comparing HoFers from one era to journeymen from other to be intellectually honest.


So far you still haven't made a point, we just know your opinion, and all your arguments are centered around how you can twist perception of what wording means (poorly too I might add). As if multiple players putting up LeBron-like numbers somehow undercuts the point that the league was better at the time. With that awful, horrendous logic, you're literally saying there's no way to argue a previous era is better since you're throwing positive stats out the window as somehow a negative, LOL. Horrible logic dude. What the fuck? I hope you have an excuse for this like being drunk.

Nice to see you're one of those folks who turns into an asshole whenever someone disagrees with you.

I already replied to most of your childish critique above, but to add further information to it, I just looked up the stats for the so-called "LeBron-like" players. Ewing was a 22/10/2 guy. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't be in the discussion. Malone was a 25/10/4 guy. Pretty obvious why he's second behind Duncan on GOAT PF lists. Barkley was a 22/12/4 guy. Third on GOAT PF list, so not bad. Robinson was a 21/11/3 guy. I loved seeing him play in his prime and he was more talented that the numbers he put up.

James is a 28/7/7 guy. Griffin is a 21/10/4 guy. Howard is at 18/13/2. Durant is at 27/7/4. Dirk is 22/8/3. That doesn't mention all the dominant (statistically) guards like Paul, Curry, Westbrook or Wade. It also doesn't include the old guard of bigs like Duncan and Garnett who belong in two eras. It also doesn't include Kobe, who was statistically dominant in this era, or Shaq and Bynum, who are done now but who played well in this era.

It all goes back to what I said at the beginning: There are always going to be dominant players in any era. Using their stats to compare eras is ludicrous. We're going to see a lot of all-time greats come through these years by the time the next era begins.

[EIC]

It doesn't bother me at all because the NBA was more fun to watch back in the day. The league wasn't heavily catered to flashy players with only moderate skill who bulldoze to the basket and get FTAs all night.

I can't think of a single player from OKC who matches that description. Not a one.

[Kidd K]

I'm sorry you're struggling to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat. You made an argument that the other era (sure, 90s. Who cares? It doesn't matter to me which era you pick, since it wouldn't change the argument from my end) was superior to this era because there were many players who dominated the league the way that only James can do now. I responded by saying that that is a poor argument. Multiple players being able to dominate an era implies the era as a whole wasn't very good, not that it was tougher. It takes a superhuman with the size of a power-forward and the skills of a point-guard to put up great numbers now. (Not true, obviously since there are others who put up great numbers. You just dismiss them.) That's a credit to this era's strength, not its weakness.

You then changed the nature of the argument to focus on the talent level. (I don't particularly care if you meant this all along; I'm not calling you out on it regardles.) It's funny how you listed only bigs besides Jordan. Does it not surprise you that all the "more talented" wings and guards fell by the wayside to the premier centers? It shouldn't, as it doesn't surprise me. I said in my first response to you that basketball has slowly evolved from a big-oriented game to a perimeter-oriented game. The most dominant bigs of all time were Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. We all know their greatness was in large part a product of their era, which besides lacking talent also lacked many of the rules in place to day which made a big's job harder for them.

Essentially, as far as impact goes, I feel that all superstars are the products of their eras. That's not to say their talent doesn't transcend era at all, but rather it's to say that the players who can most take advantage of the conditions of their eras will succeed most in it. Players like Russell would not have dominated nearly as much in the 90s with other dominant bigs to match up against. In turn the dominant bigs of the 90s would not have dominated this era, since the rule changes in their era limits what they could do. They may well have still been star players, but they would not have been any better than the Shaqs, Duncans, Gasols and Nowitskis we saw the next decade.

You seem to think I'm arguing that today's era is superior as far as competition is concerned. I'm not, and I have said so three times now. If you spent more time reading what I wrote instead of dismissing it, you'd've understood that. What I have said is that physically, today's NBA players are better than those in eras past.



I'm sorry I missed your mentions of Lin and Lee, you know, because I didn't think you'd consider comparing HoFers from one era to journeymen from other to be intellectually honest.



Nice to see you're one of those folks who turns into an asshole whenever someone disagrees with you.

I already replied to most of your childish critique above, but to add further information to it, I just looked up the stats for the so-called "LeBron-like" players. Ewing was a 22/10/2 guy. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't be in the discussion. Malone was a 25/10/4 guy. Pretty obvious why he's second behind Duncan on GOAT PF lists. Barkley was a 22/12/4 guy. Third on GOAT PF list, so not bad. Robinson was a 21/11/3 guy. I loved seeing him play in his prime and he was more talented that the numbers he put up.

James is a 28/7/7 guy. Griffin is a 21/10/4 guy. Howard is at 18/13/2. Durant is at 27/7/4. Dirk is 22/8/3. That doesn't mention all the dominant (statistically) guards like Paul, Curry, Westbrook or Wade. It also doesn't include the old guard of bigs like Duncan and Garnett who belong in two eras. It also doesn't include Kobe, who was statistically dominant in this era, or Shaq and Bynum, who are done now but who played well in this era.

It all goes back to what I said at the beginning: There are always going to be dominant players in any era. Using their stats to compare eras is ludicrous. We're going to see a lot of all-time greats come through these years by the time the next era begins.

It doesn't matter how many words you use to explain a shitty point. It's still a shitty point. If an era isn't considered to have greater stars because it has multiple good players in it, then what the fuck is? You're moving the goalposts. It's a shitty, weak, illogical point to explain away the massive hole in your argument.

Look at your point at face value. You are literally saying: "Since that era had more great players, it's a worse era." It's an incredibly stupid point (as well as a logical fallacy) and I'm ignoring it and your opinion on it from now on. I will not debate with people who ignore facts or use logical fallacies to argue them away.



I don't know how you could have missed me saying Lee and Lin when I literally said: "Durant, Lee, Lin" all together.


I don't turn into an asshole when someone disagrees, but I may when some dipshit uses multiple logical fallacies to explain away facts. Disagree all you want, but at least make a fuckin point and don't act like someone is wrong when all you're armed with is broken logic and a hard head.

[Chinook]

It doesn't matter how many words you use to explain a shitty point. It's still a shitty point. If an era isn't considered to have greater stars because it has multiple good players in it, then what the fuck is? You're moving the goalposts. It's a shitty, weak, illogical point to explain away the massive hole in your argument.

Look at your point at face value. You are literally saying: "Since that era had more great players, it's a worse era." It's an incredibly stupid point (as well as a logical fallacy) and I'm ignoring it and your opinion on it from now on. I will not debate with people who ignore facts or use logical fallacies to argue them away.



I don't know how you could have missed me saying Lee and Lin when I literally said: "Durant, Lee, Lin" all together.


I don't turn into an asshole when someone disagrees, but I may when some dipshit uses multiple logical fallacies to explain away facts. Disagree all you want, but at least make a fuckin point and don't act like someone is wrong when all you're armed with is broken logic and a hard head.

I see you're just looking to have a pissing match. I don't particularly care to play. So I won't really respond to all the ad homenim stuff you keep throwing out. I'll stop responding to you entirely if you keep insisting on going down that road.

I'll repeat the argument a final time, since you're struggling with it. First, the 90s didn't have more great players. We have plenty now. We have fewer dominant bigs, which is because the league's different now. But we have more dominant perimeter players. Even so, we still have a handful of future HoF bigs out there, and we're probably about to see three more rise with Davis, Drummond and Embiid. Meanwhile, the 90s doesn't really compare when it comes to dominant perimeter players. Do I use that to say this era has more-impactful players now? Nope. I think both sets of players are products of their eras.

Secondly, the argument isn't to say the 90s were worse because they had great players. It's not say that if so many elite players dominate an era, that speaks to them having favorable conditions to dominate. The extension I made from is that the overall level of competition of the era was weaker relative to its stars. If it takes the greatest physical specimen in NBA history to dominate this era, it's because the level of competition is so high that the slightly lesser talents can't break through. That whole part of the argument is strictly logical, since this era does indeed have its share of elite talent who are indeed dominating.



As I said before, I didn't think you were actually using Lee and Lin to compare with Jordan and Hakeem, since it would make no sense to compare superstars to one era to journeymen of another era. Durant's the only one of those "weaklings" who's a future HoFer and a superstar. He's also a guy who's as tall as a center but who shoots like a guard and can handle the ball. He's a physical freak in his own right. But that's neither here nor there. If you look at all the other potential HoFers who were drafted after 2003 (the beginning of this current era as far as drafts are concerned, in my opinion), you won't find too many "weak" looking players outside of Durant and maybe Davis.

Again, simply listing the past HoFers and talking about them out of context isn't making a point. Not only were they NOT statistically superior to the players today, but they were a product of having favorable rules to them as much as today's players are. I already listed their numbers to show they weren't really in Lebron's category. Even with having less-favorable rules, players like Griffin and Howard put up great numbers. Obviously, Duncan, Shaq and KG made HoF careers over the last two eras. Those are the actual facts. The rest is all subjective or speculatory. That's fine on a message board, so long as other posters don't come up acting like assholes because someone disagrees with them and can't make successive arguments without continuing to be an asshole.

You can sit there in your own head and think the 90s were so much better and that no Spur defender can touch Bowen's memory all you want. But there's no point in having any sort of discussion with you if this is how you're going to act.

[Man In Black]

I don't care if they do, if their game was TRANSCENDENT enough. Tim Duncan could play in any era and dominate. Wilt Chamberlain, if he was 30 and playing today, he'd be the highest paid player in the league and leading in points and rebounds. Certain players have the type of game with a certain set of skills, that would allow them to play in any era.
You can't say that athletes of today are automatically better because of training methods and proper nutrition. For everyone that tells me that there are studs in today's NBA, I remind you all that there are players like Ryan Kelly, Hasheem Thabeet, and Jon Brockman who are in today's NBA. Since they play in this era, does that mean they're better than say Jon Koncak or Will Perdue or Lorenzen Wright? The game is hoops and some moves are old classics, everyone knows that old classics, sometimes work best.

[Kidd K]

I see you're just looking to have a pissing match. I don't particularly care to play. So I won't really respond to all the ad homenim stuff you keep throwing out. I'll stop responding to you entirely if you keep insisting on going down that road.

I'll repeat the argument a final time, since you're struggling with it. First, the 90s didn't have more great players. We have plenty now. We have fewer dominant bigs, which is because the league's different now. But we have more dominant perimeter players. Even so, we still have a handful of future HoF bigs out there, and we're probably about to see three more rise with Davis, Drummond and Embiid. Meanwhile, the 90s doesn't really compare when it comes to dominant perimeter players. Do I use that to say this era has more-impactful players now? Nope. I think both sets of players are products of their eras.

Secondly, the argument isn't to say the 90s were worse because they had great players. It's not say that if so many elite players dominate an era, that speaks to them having favorable conditions to dominate. The extension I made from is that the overall level of competition of the era was weaker relative to its stars. If it takes the greatest physical specimen in NBA history to dominate this era, it's because the level of competition is so high that the slightly lesser talents can't break through. That whole part of the argument is strictly logical, since this era does indeed have its share of elite talent who are indeed dominating.



As I said before, I didn't think you were actually using Lee and Lin to compare with Jordan and Hakeem, since it would make no sense to compare superstars to one era to journeymen of another era. Durant's the only one of those "weaklings" who's a future HoFer and a superstar. He's also a guy who's as tall as a center but who shoots like a guard and can handle the ball. He's a physical freak in his own right. But that's neither here nor there. If you look at all the other potential HoFers who were drafted after 2003 (the beginning of this current era as far as drafts are concerned, in my opinion), you won't find too many "weak" looking players outside of Durant and maybe Davis.

Again, simply listing the past HoFers and talking about them out of context isn't making a point. Not only were they NOT statistically superior to the players today, but they were a product of having favorable rules to them as much as today's players are. I already listed their numbers to show they weren't really in Lebron's category. Even with having less-favorable rules, players like Griffin and Howard put up great numbers. Obviously, Duncan, Shaq and KG made HoF careers over the last two eras. Those are the actual facts. The rest is all subjective or speculatory. That's fine on a message board, so long as other posters don't come up acting like assholes because someone disagrees with them and can't make successive arguments without continuing to be an asshole.

You can sit there in your own head and think the 90s were so much better and that no Spur defender can touch Bowen's memory all you want. But there's no point in having any sort of discussion with you if this is how you're going to act.

I was actually looking to have a debate, but not with a clown who centers his entire argument around logical fallacies. Did not even read your post after the first line. Next time I'll debate with you if you don't use logical fallacies for the entirety of your points.

[NickiRasgo]

What I noticed? Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster but a very bunch of whiners when it comes to physicality where in 90's they really played a lot of physicality.

[Chinook]

I was actually looking to have a debate, but not with a clown who centers his entire argument around logical fallacies. Did not even read your post after the first line. Next time I'll debate with you if you don't use logical fallacies for the entirety of your points.

Yeah, I'm done. Had you read the post, you'd've seen that I still gave your argument the light of day and answered them seriously and without name-calling. You would have seen that I clarified what I mean (again) and answered you point for point.

I really thought you were a decent poster. I even defended you after I kept catching you being disingenuous in the Bowen debate. But I was wrong, obviously.

[kaji157]

I agree in general.
But the 1999 Spurs 2003 Spurs and 2005 Spurs would demolish this Heat team because of the sole level of Tim Duncan. The Heat don´t have a player able to contain him, this was shown last year with all the problems they had defending hibbert.
And last year´s Hibbert doesn´t even come close to Duncan´s Prime.
The way the big men are today, Duncan would own the league had he been in his prime now.

[hitmanyr2k]

I just looked up the stats for the so-called "LeBron-like" players. Ewing was a 22/10/2 guy. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't be in the discussion. Malone was a 25/10/4 guy. Pretty obvious why he's second behind Duncan on GOAT PF lists. Barkley was a 22/12/4 guy. Third on GOAT PF list, so not bad. Robinson was a 21/11/3 guy. I loved seeing him play in his prime and he was more talented that the numbers he put up.

James is a 28/7/7 guy. Griffin is a 21/10/4 guy. Howard is at 18/13/2. Durant is at 27/7/4. Dirk is 22/8/3. That doesn't mention all the dominant (statistically) guards like Paul, Curry, Westbrook or Wade. It also doesn't include the old guard of bigs like Duncan and Garnett who belong in two eras. It also doesn't include Kobe, who was statistically dominant in this era, or Shaq and Bynum, who are done now but who played well in this era.

It all goes back to what I said at the beginning: There are always going to be dominant players in any era. Using their stats to compare eras is ludicrous. We're going to see a lot of all-time greats come through these years by the time the next era begins.

I don't think it's honest to use career numbers of past players who played way past their prime and then compare their numbers to players who are currently in or near their prime. I think it's safe to say that guys who played until 36-40 years of age are going to see their career numbers dip quite a bit than when they were playing at the ages of 24-30. David Robinson averaged 14 points in the last 5 seasons of his career which took his career numbers down. That's far from the 24-30 point scorer he was in his prime.

[Chinook]

I don't think it's honest to use career numbers of past players who played way past their prime and then compare their numbers to players who are currently in or near their prime. I think it's safe to say that guys who played until 36-40 years of age are going to see their career numbers dip quite a bit than when they were playing at the ages of 24-30. David Robinson averaged 14 points in the last 5 seasons of his career which took his career numbers down. That's far from the 24-30 point scorer he was in his prime.

Only Dirk and Wade are fully past their peaks (and maybe not even James). Blake isn't even in his prime yet. Durant isn't at his peak yet. There are players like DeMarcus Cousins who seem to just be figuring it out. I agree that it's hard to compare retired player's to current ones. But it cuts both ways.

[Kidd K]

Yeah, I'm done. Had you read the post, you'd've seen that I still gave your argument the light of day and answered them seriously and without name-calling. You would have seen that I clarified what I mean (again) and answered you point for point.

I really thought you were a decent poster. I even defended you after I kept catching you being disingenuous in the Bowen debate. But I was wrong, obviously.

It doesn't really matter what you think of me dude. Thanks for defending me whenever (I'll take your word for it), sorry for name-calling (yeah I overreacted a bit), but I still don't like arguments built solely around logical fallacies. Shit like that makes it pointless to even have a discussion about anything much less basketball.

[TimmyDuncan21]

Yes todays players would Murder NBA players from the 50s 60s and 70s, TBH a top 3-5 kid in high school would Murder a star player in the NBA that played in the 60s and it wouldnt even be close.

[dbreiden83080]

One of the things that I find particularly humorous is the idea that 90's basketball was so much more physical all the time. I guess those people didn't watch Michael Jordan go up against the Knicks year after year in the playoffs where late in the game if you looked at him Cross eyed they were blowing the whistle.