# What has happened to the 90's NBA?



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

I honestly can't figure it out. When I think back, the rivalries, and every playoff series in the 90's was EPIC. The teams were ferocious, games were probably the most memorable of any period in NBA basketball... and now all of a sudden nothing feels as classic as the 90's were.

Maybe it's because of the much better defensive players and teams (overall, in modern era) compared to the 90's, the explosive scorers of the 90's (almost every team had one), the fact that guys these days are so ego-driven these days....? They are all long-shots at best.

What is it!? I have the biggest itch to watch 90's NBA film (if I could find it), but then it got me thinking to how non-memorable the last 4-5 years of NBA playoffs were compared to 1992-1998.

Anybody have any ideas?


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

"how non-memorable the last 4-5 years of NBA playoffs were compared to 1992-1998."

That's because the jazz havn't been in the playoffs to make it exciting.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

NBC. No Jordan, Magic, Barkley, and Bird. Oversaturation of information. Too many young superstars learning on the job. Too much money being made. Wussy league rules.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

unluckyseventeen said:


> I honestly can't figure it out. When I think back, the rivalries, and every playoff series in the 90's was EPIC. The teams were ferocious, games were probably the most memorable of any period in NBA basketball... and now all of a sudden nothing feels as classic as the 90's were.
> 
> Maybe it's because of the much better defensive players and teams (overall, in modern era) compared to the 90's, the explosive scorers of the 90's (almost every team had one), the fact that guys these days are so ego-driven these days....? They are all long-shots at best.
> 
> ...


Nostalgia


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Ha.

No, seriously... what happened to the Bulls/Knicks? Bulls/Indiana? Jazz/Rockets? Really, it seemed like every single series from around that era will be etched in time forever as some of the greatest that ever went down.

Today, watching the playoffs, whether your team is in it or not, you can tell the excitement is not nearly what it was back during the mid-90's.... and 10 years from now I can't envision any recent playoff series being shown on ESPN classic as some of the most memorable series' ever taking place.

I honestly think it's just a matter of effort. Back during the 90's it seemed like everyone was playing at 150%, all the time. Nowadays a few guys are and the rest are just hanging out.


----------



## BLUE CHIP (Aug 29, 2004)

i disagree. 

last seasons lakers/sun series reminded me of the 90s.

And the Houston/Dallas series of the 2004-2005 playoffs reminded me of the classic battles of the 90s.

I think it's all about showcasing it. In the 90s, the NBA owes a lot of it's greatest moments to NBC. Right now, a TNT game is the closes thing to the feeling of watching a 90s basketball game.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

BLUE CHIP said:


> i disagree.
> 
> last seasons lakers/sun series reminded me of the 90s.
> 
> ...


agreed. its not being showcased the right way. there are no more triple headers anymore. 3 straight games on saturday AND sunday. americans are more lazier to watch a whole game nowadays much less than 3 straight games and particularly without any real star power.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Huh... yeah that is a good point. Those two series' in particular were very memorable, but I'd still say the 90's were a more memorable era.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

BLUE CHIP said:


> i disagree.
> 
> *last seasons lakers/sun series reminded me of the 90s.
> 
> ...



I agree, somewhat. It did feel kind of like a 90's playoff game.

But the rest of the post season seems as if it was the same ol stuff, just a different day type thing. Most of the 2000's have been Spurs, Spurs and Spurs (boring ball), or Pistons this or Pistons that (boring ball), and a weak Eastern Conference up until this past season may have been a factor. 
But now I can hope with so much more fresh talent and contending teams, that it will go up from here. Just throw in a few physical series here and there and we got it made


----------



## Rednecksbasketball (Dec 18, 2003)

> Wussy league rules.


that hits it right on the head; the game is a weak game today. another thing that changed the game was the league and players decided that money was presidented over integrity. yes Jordan would have sold his soul for a few million bucks back in the 90s, but now everyone has a shoe contract. also the media has been forcing players down our throats as stars when they aren't stars.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Recent playoffs have been pretty great. And scoring is going to continue to increase. I'm expecting an amazing upcoming season with plenty of suprises. Overall talent level is way up from the 90s. There's tons of depth and parity. The battle for those last few playoff spots is going to be insane and expect division rivalries to begin blossoming.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

its tru what he is saying, as much as i love dw, lebron, dirk etc......its not the same as jordan, pip, barkley, drexler, penny, hakeem etc...most of them were proven vets by the time the 90's rolled round and were really superstars essentially in their prime....

now we got the younger generation pimpin the playoffs which is exciting to see, but not as fun as seeing jordan with a fadeaway, or Reggie draining 3's to sink a team, or barkley with his ever charismatic grab of a rebound, or nique with a dunk that would bring down the house....

trades, teams tweaking their rosters, the incosistency of the same starting 5 for more then 2 years has really put a dent in the nba in terms of recognising great teams....i mean come on, what team playoff teams besides detroit has had (at least 4 players) the same starting 5 for the past 4-6 years....wheras, back in the 90's, u knew who was on the first bulls 3peat lineup, and their second repeat, seattles, utahs, knicks, indiana....


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i don't think the playoffs of the past 6 years has been bad at all, but that could be because i'm a lakers fan :biggrin: 

the lakers/kings series was literally epic
the lakers/blazers in 99-00 was a pretty good one (we were down by 13 points in the 3rd quarter of game 7 and came roaring back)
the spurs and lakers series in 03-04 with fisher's .4 seconds = epic

the mavs/rockets of 04-05 was pretty good. the lakers/suns series last year didnt dissapoint. mavs/spurs last year was also great. 

there have been many other good series' but i can't seem to remember them all (only the laker ones)


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Its been good the last 5 years... not as memorable, maybe because the superstars today just aren't as rare as the superstars back then. Today, you have a lot of players on the same level... and the only real champions are on their decline.

That, and the league has seriously over-protected the superstars.. today, too many touch fouls, too many phantom fouls.. its like its almost rigged or setup. 

Back then, you'll see players getting banged and you see them rise up and play with more heart... ok ok.. that was primarily Jordan.. but teams like the Knicks, Heat, Rockets, Suns, Spurs, Sonics, Jazz, Bulls, Pacers... I mean any of those teams could of been champions... all on the same level... except for the fact that the Bulls had Jordan who always got them through.

But the league has been good.. not on par as the 90s classic and epic matchups.. but its been good.. I seriously think that the ridiculous referee calls and over-protection is very very annoying however.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

It's called myth. There's not a single thing about today's NBA that isn't superior to the 90's save for:

1) Elite defensive centers.
2) Less ego 10 years ago (but that's nitpicking, there has been ego in the NBA since its inception).


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I can't believe people are pining for the 90's. 

While it was happening it was considered the worst age of basketball in people's memory. There was no offense. All of the players were selfish and played isolation basketball, and the same team basically won the title every single year.

Woo. Glory days.

You people need to learn to appreciate the age we are in. We are entering one of the greatest eras in basketball history, and you guys are pining for the dark ages. Yao vs. Oden. Lebron vs. Wade. Kobe in his prime. T-Mac. Powerhouse teams in both conferences. Every team a diffrent style of play. It seems like every series goes 7 games and is decided by a buzzer beater.

And it's hilarious to hear people complain about NBA officiating nowadays, because the 90's were the pinacle of bad basketball refereeing.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

I'm only asking why it was much more memorable than today, and how it suddenly changed from every series being instant classics, to the ho-hum NBA that is prevalent in today's era. Ever since the Lakers/Kings it's been spotty.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> I'm only asking why it was much more memorable than today, and how it suddenly changed from every series being instant classics, to the ho-hum NBA that is prevalent in today's era. Ever since the Lakers/Kings it's been spotty.


I am guessing the reason for you is because the Jazz have been bad. I am guessing the draft has been more exciting than in the past though.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Ummm... that may be part of the reason. However, back in the Bulls' hayday I can remember almost every single conference final series, or any matchup against the Knicks during those years. A lot of those games will go down as some of the most memorable ever played. Same thing with the Pacers/Bulls.

I'm just speaking from an overall standpoint. Remember the Bulls/Jazz finals series for those two years? The OVERALL interest of NBA fans was unspeakably high. I think those were the most watched NBA finals... ever? I'd have to look up the official TV ratings. 

Ever since then, the playoffs have been kind of uninteresting to watch, and the numbers will show it. I honestly didn't even watch or care about the majority of the finals. The Bulls/Heat series was interesting, as well as Lakers/Suns, but besides that it just was not that interesting.

I've always been a fan of basketball, especially playoff basketball. But it seems like the last GREAT series that everyone could enjoy was Lakers/Kings, pick a year. Since then, the rest of them have not been that memorable. It felt like there was at least 2 or 3 series' per year in the 90s that were flat out awesome and will be remembered forever. I just can't figure out why it hasn't been like that lately.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Explore my sig. 


Officiating has been sliding since around 2000, and continues to get worse as offensive fouls go through the roof, and NBA players develop new shortcuts to trick inept officials. Combine that with more power given to officials to call the perimeter and overall game tighter, and you have an inconsistent, bogged down game, with a new crappy ball to put the cherry on top.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

Rednecksbasketball said:


> that hits it right on the head; the game is a weak game today. another thing that changed the game was the league and players decided that money was presidented over integrity. yes Jordan would have sold his soul for a few million bucks back in the 90s, but now everyone has a shoe contract. * also the media has been forcing players down our throats as stars when they aren't stars*.


like?


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

i agree with the myth. ppl always think another era was "better" 10 years from now, they are gonna say "whatever happened to the last decade of basketball? the classic battles between powerhouses like the spurs and lakers? where are all the stars like lebron and wade to make the elague exciting" trust me, basketball now is just as good as it was then. back then there were boring games, boring teams, and bad calls, as there were exciting teams, exciting games, and great calls


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

Definitely nostalgia. 

Basketball is no less exciting today.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Basketball was better in the 90's in my honest opinion. The game was definitely more physical, the officiating was far better, and flopping was not killing the game.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I think Last post season was great

every games in the 2nd round on in the west was great

Lakers/Suns (I know if wasn't 2nd round but it was great nonetheless), Suns/MAvs, Mavs/Spurs

CAvs/Pistons had it's moments too.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

dont get me wrong, 90s memories were great and yeah probably some of the best....but i think with the emergence of teams like the Clippers, and all these young guys, there is going to be a whole new ay of memorable seasons to come and heey maybe a Clippers championship or lakers championship

and yeah Lakers/Suns and Clippers/Suns last year reminded me of the 90s, those two series were probably the most exciting last year, the Mavericks run was memorable as well, althought it might never be like it was, im hopinh this new generation gets close :biggrin:


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

JNice said:


> NBC. No Jordan, Magic, Barkley, and Bird. Oversaturation of information. Too many young superstars learning on the job. Too much money being made. Wussy league rules.


Dot com owners who have no concept of how to put teams together (Knicks, Atlanta, Seattle )

Too much money given to players who have not done anything. (What has Nene done to deserve 60mil?) And every other PF wants the same money as him. 

Little guards won't learn to run an offense
SG refuse to drive the lane or play any defense
PF's (K Mart, SAR,etc..) refuse to bang yet still make top dollar
Centers never learn any skills at all (J James, Olowakandi, Gadzuric) yet make millions

Now it is just "watch the superstar dunk" or "watch one guy do all the shooting and play no D at all"

Look at the Heat: Shaq is under the basket, Haslem bangs, Walker shoots, Wade scores, JWill runs the offense. They have a ring !!


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

I really think these next two years will be something to remember.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Also, on top of all of this, there are still 3 more years of playoff basketball that might round out a good decade. Perhaps myself and a few others are just stuck in the 90's.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

JNice said:


> NBC. No Jordan, Magic, Barkley, and Bird. Oversaturation of information. Too many young superstars learning on the job. Too much money being made. Wussy league rules.


You put Barkley in the wrong category.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The 90's (after expansion and before the infusion of foreign talent, plus the loss of stars like Hill, Penny) were the dark ages of basketball. I NEVER want to see teams like 90's version of the Knicks, Cavs, and Heat play again: ugly basketball


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

it's pretty simple, there is one big thing missing in today's game and that is rivalries with staying power. the rivalries in the 90s were crazy, and everyone teams, players, coaches, media, fans would get pumped every single time these two teams would play (heat/knicks, knicks/pacers, bulls/knicks, etc. etc. etc.). the only rivalry like the days of old this decade was the kings and lakers, but that's hardly a rivalry anymore.

rivalries bring NBA basketball to another level of excitement, at least i think they do. hopefully we can start getting some new ones going. cavs/heat IMO would be a rivarly for the ages. rockets/lakers. suns/mavs. right now they lack the fire and intensity of past rivalries, but they have potential...


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

You have to factor in that the center of sports media is still New York. When New York teams suck, the talking heads usually villify the entire league. IMO there was nothing epic about the Knicks or Heat in the 90's. I find it telling that someone can get nostalgic about those matmatchups but not appreciate the Spurs or Pistons.

Compare the entire league. This season, 1-30, every team has some promise. Each and every team.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

The difference is no MJ and no NBC. 2 big reasons why the league isn't as popular as it used to be. Lack of rivalries comes in 3rd. The quality of play has had a slight drop-off too, IMO. Plus your team(Jazz) actually used to be good in the 90's.

I think the NBA's on the comeback though. Last season was one of the best I've ever seen and w/ the core group of superstars we have.......I expect another golden age. The ratings won't ever be what they used to be but the NBA's on the rise.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I loved most of the '90s, but I've also really enjoyed the last few years. IMO, the "dark ages" were from 1998-2003.

The '90s had loads of talent at center and power forward. Now we have many really good swingmen.
In the '90s, talent was less evenly spread across teams, so you had some truly memorable sides. Now there are fewer all-time great sides, but the league is more balanced, with very few terrible teams.
Perhaps the only thing the '90s had that can't be countered with something that exists today are rivalries. And trash talking, if you consider that a good thing.



Pioneer10 said:


> I NEVER want to see teams like 90's version of the Knicks, Cavs, and Heat play again: ugly basketball


I loved the mid-'90s Knicks. There's a lot of fun in watching a team bully and shut down another.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> The 90's (after expansion and before the infusion of foreign talent, plus the loss of stars like Hill, Penny) were the dark ages of basketball. I NEVER want to see teams like 90's version of the Knicks, Cavs, and Heat play again: ugly basketball



Exactly. Those days are my enduring memory whenever I think of the 90's. I think the Bulls-Jazz finals, one of the games set the NBA finals record for lowest point total. And that was Bulls-Jazz.

Anyone who is nostalgiac for that basketball needs to find another sport. Like curling.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Late 90s basketball was terrible. It took the league about 4years to get over that bull**** from 96-00. Jordan is the only reason that period of hoops doesn't get bashed.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Since the Mavs were the worst team in all of creation during the '90s, I'll accept present day status.

Thank you. :biggrin:


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

i remember the slam magazine article with iverson on the cover with the fro and the throwback jersey wearing his jewelry. they redid that cover couple months ago with an article on just how bad basketball was, and how iverson was one of the main ppl that saved it. if you all want to remember how bad it was...read that article. dont give in to the myth and the nostalgia. the greatness of the early 90s were evened out by the suckiness of the late 90s


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

1990 - 1995 was some of the best basketball EVER played. Don't get it twisted. I agree however that the league was watered down after the two expansion teams joined the league, but 1990-1995 is hands down the greatest period of basketball played. 

Today's league is interesting, don't get me wrong... but it doesn't compare to the early 90's. Not by a long shot. Some clown in here keeps saying "offense this, offense that" basketball isn't just about offense. And no, if you like defense, you shouldn't resort to a sport of curling. Some people actually enjoy seeing some one get down and dirty and play hard nosed defense. Basketball is played on both sides of the ball. Defense isn't played today, it isn't instructed well, and rarely anyone is willing to play it. Defense is what created the actual team rivalries. And team rivalries always outshines and is more fun and intriguing than one on one matchups. If you like one v one, go watch tennis.

If there wasn't so many ultra-young players learning the game on the fly, players being smarter, less egotism, too much money being handed down, maybe we would actually see some motivated players. Let's also not forget that today's league, is so clamoring for another Jordan to elevate the sport, that they give the referees the go ahead to make superstars out of certain players. The pinnacle of bad officiating was just seen in this year's playoffs. Absolutely pathetic. Hand me down foul calls, shouldn't give way to try and elevate someone to mythical Jordan / Magic / Bird type status. Today's game is sissy-fying our basketball players. Americans were known, and brought up on the physical aspects of the sport. It's one of the reasons why we dominated overseas. Now, with all the baby-ing and coddling fromt he refs, we go over seas, get out muscled, and are stuck begging for fouls. This is what the new rules are doing to American basketball player's games, by taking the toughness out of the sport. It's absolutely pathetic.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

LA68 said:


> Now it is just "watch the superstar dunk" or "watch one guy do all the shooting and play no D at all"
> !


Am I the only one who thinks there were more dunks going on in the days of Jordan, Kemp, and others? Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong. However I can think of many games this season that I've seen that had three dunks or less.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The 90's is where the "all they do is dunk, they have no fundementals" tripe came from. So trotting that out against the most well balanced generation of basketball players ever, is kind of funny. Kobe Bryant can do every single thing you could ask for on the both ends of the floor. KG, Tim Duncan, T-Mac, Lebron, Wade--these are all total court players.

Like someone said, the next 4 years to close out this decade may be one of the greatest sections of time in sports period.

I think Wade/Lebron is a rivalry brewing that would blow out of the water any duels Jordan got in. We're talking Bird vs. Nique, but on an even higher level.

Dwight Howard is a monster. Greg Oden comes in next year. Yao Ming has figured it out. The Phoenix Suns play the best basketball of any team from the 90's. The Spurs are basketballing perfection.

I thought last season was one of the best seasons in NBA History. We saw a guy score 81 freaking points. All of the playoffs went to the limit. The first round had so many buzzer beaters and so many game 7's and so many huge games. And this is just a preview of things to come.

I feel sorry for the kids trapped in 90's nostalgia, who aren't appreciating the current era.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> The 90's is where the "all they do is dunk, they have no fundementals" tripe came from.


Uhh, all 90's players were more effecient, smarter, and just generally better all-around basketball players. It is today's players who lack the fundamentals. Kids can't even stop a pick and roll.



> KG, Tim Duncan, T-Mac, Lebron, Wade--these are all total court players.


LeBronze and Wade aren't "total court" players. They play offense.



> Like someone said, the next 4 years to close out this decade may be one of the greatest sections of time in sports period.


Uhh, no. Today's game is ruining basketball. It's turning to figure skating with a basketball. LeBron and Wade, being the front runners as the huge pussies of today's generation of players.



> I think Wade/Lebron is a rivalry brewing that would blow out of the water any duels Jordan got in. We're talking Bird vs. Nique, but on an even higher level.


Well yeah, cause no one really challenged Jordan individually. Wade has to break 50 first before there is a great rivalry between those two. Let alone the fact that neither play defense.

But one v one's never match up with great team rivalries. Bulls v.s. Knicks from the 90's, Lakers v.s. Celtics. team rivalries are always the best. If you want one on one, go watch tennis.



> Dwight Howard is a monster. Greg Oden comes in next year. Yao Ming has figured it out. The Phoenix Suns play the best basketball of any team from the 90's. The Spurs are basketballing perfection.


The Phoenix Suns can't even win in their current league. They'd get shut down by any good defensive team in the 90's. Hell, Run TMC was better than the current Suns.



> I feel sorry for the kids trapped in 90's nostalgia, who aren't appreciating the current era.


I feel sorry for today's generation of basketball, sorley lacking fundamentals, and get beat by crews who shouldn't be beating them.

LeBronze is leaving his legacy on the game.

David Stern and the NBA continues to search for someone who can replicate Jordan. But no one comes close.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

I find it funny that people see the U.S. getting beaten at international competitions as a sign of the NBA's downfall rather than as a sign of the strengthening of European leagues.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

It's elements of both. And flaws could be seen. I mean, this isn't just the strength of Euro leagues increasing... we know they can play. But these were NBA players. And not just NBA players, but the 'elite' NBA players. And they came in third place, again. The 1st Dream Team, the Second, and / or third would not get a BRONZE medal. They knew how to play. They played defense. They had fundamentals. THEY COULD SHOOT. If you don't think today's players skills and fundamentals have eroded, you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

It's all about money. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Players are being promoted on TV and billboards instead of the actual matchups.


----------



## JoeD (Sep 2, 2004)

If it was not for the officiating, this age of basketball would be practically perfect.


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

JoeD said:


> If it was not for the officiating, this age of basketball would be practically perfect.



No era is perfect, and it cannot be perfect. It will always have its flaws. It just happens to be the officiating that is the flaw.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> It's elements of both. And flaws could be seen. I mean, this isn't just the strength of Euro leagues increasing... we know they can play. But these were NBA players. And not just NBA players, but the 'elite' NBA players. And they came in third place, again. The 1st Dream Team, the Second, and / or third would not get a BRONZE medal. They knew how to play. They played defense. They had fundamentals. THEY COULD SHOOT. If you don't think today's players skills and fundamentals have eroded, you haven't been paying attention.


lmao. Comparing international competition from over 10 years ago to today's? Yeah, we get it, you don't watch basketball and _were_ a Bulls fan.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

What is the thread starter talking about we have had memorable playoff series in this decade.

Blazers/Lakers 2000
Raptors/Sixers 2001
Lakers/Kings 2002
Mavericks/Kings 2003
Lakers/Spurs 2004
Pistons/Heat 2005
Lakers/Suns 2006
Spurs/Mavericks 2006





We have also had a lot of memorable games



Pacers/Bucks (first round game 5) 2000
Suns/Lakers (second round game 2) 2000
Knicks/Heat (second round game 7) 2000
Blazers/Lakers (conf finals game 7) 2000
Lakers/Pacers (NBA finals game 4) 2000
Lakers/Pacers (NBA finals game 6) 2000

Pacers/Sixers (first round game 1) 2001
Mavs/Jazz (first round game 5) 2001
Raptors/Sixers (second round game 3) 2001
Raptors/Sixers (second round game 7) 2001
Sixers.Bucks (conf finals game 7) 2001
Sixers/Lakers (NBA finals game 1) 2001


Lakers/Blazers (first round game 3) 2002
Hornets/Magic (first round game 3) 2002
Nets/Pacers (first round game 3) 2002
Pacers/Nets (first round game 5) 2002
Kings/Mavs (second round game 4) 2002
Lakers/Spurs (second round game 4) 2002
Kings/Lakers (conf finals game 4) 2002
Lakers/Kings (conf finals game 5) 2002
Kings/Lakers (conf finals game 6) 2002
Lakers/Kings (conf finals game 7) 2002
Nets/Celtics (conf finals game 3) 2002
Nets/Celtics (conf finals game 4) 2002
Lakers/Nets (NBA finals game 3) 2002

Suns/Spurs (first round game 1) 2003
Mavs/Blazers (first round game 7) 2003
Celtics/Pacers (first round game 1) 2003
Nets/Celtics (second round game 4) 2003
Lakers/Spurs (second round game 5) 2003
Mavs/Kings (second round game 6) 2003
Pistons/Sixers (second round game 6) 2003
Mavs/Spurs (conf finals game 1) 2003
Nets/Pistons (conf finals game 1) 2003
Nets/Spurs (NBA finals game 2) 2003


Hornets/Heat (first round game 1) 2004
Rockets/Lakers (first round game 1) 2004
Kings/Mavs (first round game 4) 2004
Nets/Knicks (first round game 3) 2004
Lakers/Spurs (second round game 5) 2004
Nets/Pistons (second round game 5) 2004
Timberwolves/Kings (second round game 7) 2004
Lakers/Timberwolves (conf finals game 6) 2004
Pistons/Lakers (NBA finals game 2) 2004

Rockets/Mavs (first round game 1) 2005
Rockets/Mavs (first round game 2) 2005
Heat/Nets (first round game 3) 2005
Pistons/Sixers (first round game 4) 2005
Wizards/Bulls (first round game 5) 2005
Bulls/Wizards (first round game 6) 2005
Heat/Wizards (second round game 4) 2005
Mavs/Suns ( second round game 6) 2005
Suns/Spurs (conf finals game 4) 2005
Pistons/Heat (conf finals game 7) 2005
Spurs/Pistons (NBA finals game 5) 2005


Pacers/Nets (first round game 1) 2006
Bulls/Heat (first round game 1) 2006
Lakers/Suns (first round game 4) 2006
Suns/Lakers (first round game 6) 2006
Wizards/Cavs (first round game 5) 2006
Cavs/Wizards (first round game 6) 2006
Mavs/Grizz (first round game 3) 2006
Spurs/Kings (first round game 4) 2006
Mavs/Spurs (second round game 1) 2006
Mavs/Spurs (second round game 5) 2006
Mavs/Spurs (second round game 7) 2006
Clippers/Suns (second round game 5) 2006
Cavs/Pistons (second round game 5) 2006
Mavs/Heat (NBA finals game 5) 2006
Heat/Mavs (NBA finals game 6) 2006



damn that was a long type.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> Uhh, all 90's players were more effecient, smarter, and just generally better all-around basketball players. It is today's players who lack the fundamentals. Kids can't even stop a pick and roll.


Who has more fundementals? Chris Paul now, or Allen Iverson in the 90's. Tim Duncan or David Robinson? Charles Barkley or Kevin Garnett? Gilbert Arenas or Jerry Stackhouse? You're talking ****. 90's basketball was all about isolation basketball. Clear out a side and go. You honestly would give up the free flowing games of the Phoenix Suns for the Charles Barkley version, where Chuck just backs a guy down from half court?




> LeBronze and Wade aren't "total court" players. They play offense.


And defense. They are big play defenders right now, but on offense they do so much more than the top players of the 90's. After Jordan and Pippen what do you have in the 90's? A few years of Penny? A few years of GHill? Name me all of the 30/7/7 players shooting around 50 percent in the 90's and tell me about how smart and efficient the 90's players were.



> Uhh, no. Today's game is ruining basketball. It's turning to figure skating with a basketball. LeBron and Wade, being the front runners as the huge pussies of today's generation of players.


You'll have to explain that one. Nobody in the 90's took as much contact as either Wade or Lebron do on a nightly basis. A guy like Paul Pierce playing at the level he plays at right now would be getting MVP talk. The spread of talent in the NBA is so much greater than the 90's. And that's just fact. There's a much larger talent pool than ever before.



> Well yeah, cause no one really challenged Jordan individually. Wade has to break 50 first before there is a great rivalry between those two. Let alone the fact that neither play defense.


They combined for 90 points by themselves and one got a triple double, the other came close, in a game that went down to the wire, the last time they played. It was total court basketball with both guys rebounding, passing, defending, diving on the floor, pushing each other to new heights.

And maybe if Kobe Bryant had played at his current level in the 90's Jordan would have had his match. Jordan was a great scorer, but Kobe is so much more explosive and well rounded with his scoring. Jordan could never shoot with the range that Kobe shoots it now. I think if they played each other the 90's version, second comeback, vs. the Kobe now, Kobe would embarrass Mike. Just destroy him with no pity. He'd be stuffing Jordan's jumper on one end, and draining J's in his face on the other. There was nobody after Jordan who was as good as Kobe, T-Mac, Lebron, Wade, Pierce. 

And the front court players, who was on Tim Duncan's level? KG's level? What about Dirk?



> But one v one's never match up with great team rivalries. Bulls v.s. Knicks from the 90's, Lakers v.s. Celtics. team rivalries are always the best. If you want one on one, go watch tennis.


Kings vs. Lakers was a good one. I think Chicago-Cleveland is going to be a big one for the last stretch of this decade. Bulls vs. Knicks was a good rivalry in the sense that the Bulls always won, and there was usually a fight, and neither team scored all that much. Lakers vs. Celtics, Pistons vs. Celtics, Bulls vs. Pistons were probably all better rivalries, and all were from the 80's. So if you are going with team rivalries, then the 80's slaughters the 90's. Miami-New York was possibly the worst rivalry in the history of the NBA. Those series set basketball back a few years, we've only now recovered.



> The Phoenix Suns can't even win in their current league. They'd get shut down by any good defensive team in the 90's. Hell, Run TMC was better than the current Suns.


The "good" defensive teams of the 90's were only good because they clutched and grabbed. Nobody was really moving their feet. The Spurs are a much more skilled defensive team than any team that played in the 90's. So not only do we have the best offensive teams from either decade, we also have the best defensive one.


> I feel sorry for today's generation of basketball, sorley lacking fundamentals, and get beat by crews who shouldn't be beating them.


I feel sorry for the kids who are nostalgiac for anything from the 90's. Whether it's the sports, or the music, or the movies. It's just sad. Those of us old enough, or with enough perspective to see around that decade...we just feel bad for you guys, because it's really sad. It's baffling that people could be nostalgiac for such a crappy product.

Anyone who actually lived in the 90's, and was old enough to read during them, was constantly complaining about how bad the basketball was. The only reason anyone watched was because of Jordan. After he left, you saw the true level of the basketball being played, and the NBA lost a ton of fans. They are finally starting to come back because the overall level of basketball has come back.

Also as to the officiating, the officiating is also better than the 90's, the instant replay review alone makes it better. It's not the officiating that has gotten worse, it's the *****ing about officiating that has. I blame the internet.



> LeBronze is leaving his legacy on the game.


I sincerely hope you don't plan on watching basketball for the next ten years. It's going to really suck to be you.



> David Stern and the NBA continues to search for someone who can replicate Jordan. But no one comes close.


Actually David Stern is less concerned with finding another Jordan, than he is with promoting parity, and spreading the game gobal. Unlike many of the people who post at these boards, he's not a xenophobe. He envisions a global sport on the level of soccer. And we're definitely making inroads that way. It's an exciting time to be an NBA Fan. Each season gets better and better. There was a time in the late 90's where it seemed each year it got worse and worse.


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

Great post eddymac.

I'm as big of a fan of the 90s as anyone, but to say that this generation isn't as entertaining as that one isn't fair to the players playing now. I fell in love with basketball in the 90s, but I like it even more now than I did back then. I think nostalgia is the big thing here, I'm sure the same discussion was brought up ten years ago, except instead it was a guy complaining about how the 80s were the **** and that the 90s leave a lot to be desired. I forget where I read it, but somebody once said, everybody's favourite things are from when they were 12 years old. 

So I'd just say give the new generation a chance, nothing will ever surpass the memories from when you were a kid, but it doesn't mean it's not as fun to watch. My suggestion to you is to run out to your local pawn shop, pick up a copy of NBA Jam (for those times when you need a fix), then settled down on your couch and watch this generation of players (who will inevitably go on to make up the greatest NBA era ever in the minds of kids born in the 90s).


----------



## Elie (Apr 27, 2003)

Yes there is few good rivalries this days. 
That is the thing lacking. 

But last year's series between the Spurs and Mavs was HUGE. Each game were close or almost. 
Great stories between this two teams (the coachs , the Texas crown , the regular season battle etc...) 
It was definitely a great series. 

Spurs/Pistons was not bad either. But the style of play was not really attracting. 

Right now we don't have enough rivalries. Because there is a lack of stability. Franchise players like Carter , Tmac , Kidd , Shaq , Artest , etc have been changing teams. 
KG , Pierce , Iverson bring stability , but their team are not good enough. 

Fortunately guys like Wade , James , Duncan , Nowitzki , Nash , are not changing jerseys and they will meet each other during postseason in the next years. 
Personnally i can't wait to see San Antonio and Dallas meeting each other again . Same for the Lakers and Phoenix. Miami-Chicago. Detroit-Miami . etc etc...
Rivalries are definitely coming back .

really i just have a problem with the girly officiating.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

JNice said:


> NBC. No Jordan, Magic, Barkley, and Bird. Oversaturation of information. Too many young superstars learning on the job. Too much money being made. Wussy league rules.


thread over good stuff


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> ...


You're bringing up LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, Wade, Pierce, etc.
But what about Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Kemp, Malone, Barkley, Zo and Mutombo? As well as the huge amount of defensive talent at the 4, like B. Williams, Rodman, Horace Grant, McKey, Thorpe, Oakley, Mason, Cliff Robinson...?

There was talent in the '90s and there's talent now. It's simply spread differently.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

eddymac said:


> What is the thread starter talking about we have had memorable playoff series in this decade.
> 
> Blazers/Lakers 2000
> Raptors/Sixers 2001
> ...


Ohhh yeah, Cavs/Pistons second round game 5 I'll always remember that game.

Oh yeah, you also forgot to add the Cavs/Pistons to the list of memorable playoff series.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

:clap: :cheers: 

I'm with futuristxen.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

Are you serious? Last years playoffs was one of the best ever. More overtime games then any other playoffs. Maybe the years before, but last year was great.

And there were 2-3 series last year that were great as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> You're bringing up LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, Wade, Pierce, etc.
> But what about Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Kemp, Malone, Barkley, Zo and Mutombo? As well as the huge amount of defensive talent at the 4, like B. Williams, Rodman, Horace Grant, McKey, Thorpe, Oakley, Mason, Cliff Robinson...?
> 
> There was talent in the '90s and there's talent now. It's simply spread differently.


Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobilli, Pau Gasol, KG, Elton Brand, Shaq in his prime, Dwight Howard, Allen Iverson in his prime, Kirilenko, Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Kirk Hinrich, Jermaine O'Neal....


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

bballlife said:


> Basketball was better in the 90's in my honest opinion. The game was definitely more physical, the officiating was far better, and flopping was not killing the game.


Nah, officiating was just as bad. It's not going to miraculously change when it's practically the same people doing it.

I mean if people want evidence of horrible officiating, look at Jordan's career with the Bulls. While it's easy to appreciate some of his performances now, it's hard as hell to not cringe at the officiating that benefitted him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobilli, Pau Gasol, KG, Elton Brand, Shaq in his prime, Dwight Howard, Allen Iverson in his prime, Kirilenko, Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Kirk Hinrich, Jermaine O'Neal....


I think you're making his point. You can name a great deal of talented players from any era. You're simply choosing to focus on those from the current era. If Kirk Hinrich, Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili count, then there are a ton of players on the Nick Anderson, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel tier from the 1990s.

Not to mention superstars like Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton, John Stockton, etc (in addition to the ones already named). A player like Kevin Johnson won't make the Hall of Fame, but was every bit as good or better than Parker or Nash.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> You're bringing up LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, Wade, Pierce, etc.
> But what about Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Kemp, Malone, Barkley, Zo and Mutombo? As well as the huge amount of defensive talent at the 4, like B. Williams, Rodman, Horace Grant, McKey, Thorpe, Oakley, Mason, Cliff Robinson...?
> 
> There was talent in the '90s and there's talent now. It's simply spread differently.


 In addition to Future's extensive list

00: Yao, Dirk, Pau, Peja, Ginobili, Parker, Nocioni, Anderson, Nene, Bargnani, Turkoglu, Kirilenko, Okur, Ilguaskas, Bogut, Kristic, Pietrus, Radmanovic, Diaw, Barbaso, Milicic. Plus a whole bunch of bench players I forget

vs

Detlef, Rik Smits, Marcuilinis, Kukoc, and for a few years Petrovic


*Played in both: Sabonis, Divac

Basically we have an entire _roster_ more of starter or better quality foreign players in this decade then the 90's. Because of this only now in the 00's have we got enough talent that NBA per team is reaching to preexpansion level.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

I think it has to do with personalities. The 90s had players with bright and unique personalities, Hakeem, Jordan, Rodman, Malone, Stockton, Barkley etc. Today, all the superstars with the exception of AI just seem blah when you hear them in interviews. Yao is also a fascinating character like Hakeem who was reserved, humble, and unstoppable (as Yao is potentially becoming). NBC also helped. It helped us see the players for their personalities by giving them more consistent national exposure, and they really knew how to make every weekend of basketball a real event. Today it just doesn't have that electricity and the players don't appear very charismatic. It's all flash without substance.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

mysterio said:


> I think it has to do with personalities. The 90s had players with bright and unique personalities, Hakeem, Jordan, Rodman, Malone, Stockton, Barkley etc. Today, all the superstars with the exception of AI just seem blah when you hear them in interviews.


Ron Artest is crazier than all of those guys put together. And have you ever paid attention to Arenas? He's a ****ing loony bin. I would posit there is just as many interesting players now as then.

Read your Freedarko!


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobilli, Pau Gasol, KG, Elton Brand, Shaq in his prime, Dwight Howard, Allen Iverson in his prime, Kirilenko, Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Kirk Hinrich, Jermaine O'Neal....


I was referring to you bringing up the several great swingmen in the league right now. The talent level at the 2 and 3 wasn't nearly as great in the '90s, but there were a number of dominant centers. Early '90s Patrick Ewing would have been the best player in the league last season.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> 00: Yao, Dirk, Pau, Peja, Ginobili, Parker, Nocioni, Anderson, Nene, Bargnani, Turkoglu, Kirilenko, Okur, Ilguaskas, Bogut, Kristic, Pietrus, Radmanovic, Diaw, Barbaso, Milicic. Plus a whole bunch of bench players I forget
> 
> vs
> 
> Detlef, Rik Smits, Marcuilinis, Kukoc, and for a few years Petrovic


Good point. But Olajuwon, Mutombo and Ewing were born and raised in other countries. They just attended US colleges. Perhaps because there was little scouting internationally by NBA teams. And you forgot Dino Radja, who was a 20/10 guy. And Luc Longley and Manute Bol. And Gheorghe Muresan. 



> Basically we have an entire _roster_ more of starter or better quality foreign players in this decade then the 90's. Because of this only now in the 00's have we got enough talent that NBA per team is reaching to preexpansion level.


But don't you feel that some of the teams in the '90s were just ridiculously good? Like the Bulls and the Lakers and the Suns and the Blazers and the Jazz and the Sonics. Those all seem talented enough to win the championship today without too much difficulty.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I was referring to you bringing up the several great swingmen in the league right now. The talent level at the 2 and 3 wasn't nearly as great in the '90s, but there were a number of dominant centers. Early '90s Patrick Ewing would have been the best player in the league last season.


Patrick Ewing was garbage in the 90's. I'll take 2000-2004 Shaq over Ewing at any point in his career 80's or 90's. And last year Yao took the next step and became a dominant big man, I think at least on the level of Patrick Ewing. Then you got Dwight Howard, and soon Greg Oden. The center position in the NBA is seeing a resurgance.

But the 4's of this era are probably better than the entire frontcourt combined of the 90's.

As for the powerhouse teams of the 90's, those teams existed at the expense of the rest of the league. The Magic pre-Shaq were a joke. Damon Stoudamire was the only player on the raptors. The Dallas Mavericks played Jimmy Jackson as a cornerstone of the franchise. You had a 72 win team for chrissakes! The league was a cakewalk.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Good point. But Olajuwon, Mutombo and Ewing were born and raised in other countries. They just attended US colleges. Perhaps because there was little scouting internationally by NBA teams. And you forgot Dino Radja, who was a 20/10 guy. And Luc Longley and Manute Bol. And Gheorghe Muresan.


If you want to add foriegn born players who played college ball in the US then I get to add even more players of starter or higher calibre players to my list: Duncan, Nash, Magloire, Deng, etc etc. 

And if you want to bring in marginal players like Bol, Muresan then I can I bring up guys like Sasha Pavlovic, Sasha Vujacic, Boston Nachbar, Delfino, Songaila, blah, blah



> But don't you feel that some of the teams in the '90s were just ridiculously good? Like the Bulls and the Lakers and the Suns and the Blazers and the Jazz and the Sonics. Those all seem talented enough to win the championship today without too much difficulty.


Sure those were good to great teams but in terms of overall depth of talent and the quality of talent per team there is IMHO frankly no comparison: 00's hands down over the 90's.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Basketball was only great in the 90's from 90-96....after that the game became rather slow and boring.

I Miss NBA on NBC .


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Patrick Ewing was garbage in the 90's. I'll take 2000-2004 Shaq over Ewing at any point in his career 80's or 90's. And last year Yao took the next step and became a dominant big man, I think at least on the level of Patrick Ewing. Then you got Dwight Howard, and soon Greg Oden. The center position in the NBA is seeing a resurgance.
> 
> But the 4's of this era are probably better than the entire frontcourt combined of the 90's.
> 
> As for the powerhouse teams of the 90's, those teams existed at the expense of the rest of the league. The Magic pre-Shaq were a joke. Damon Stoudamire was the only player on the raptors. The Dallas Mavericks played Jimmy Jackson as a cornerstone of the franchise. You had a 72 win team for chrissakes! The league was a cakewalk.


I'm sorry but I wouldn't take Shaq in 03 or 04 over Ewing from 88-94, Ewing was a beast in the Post, had great Footwork, and was a monster defensively.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I honestly enjoyed the 90's form of basketball more in all it's aspects from the players to the presentation, but I must admit much of that most likely has been influenced by my nostalgia and youthful exuberance having grown up during this time. However, today's game with young stars like LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and older young stars like Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, KG, etc coupled with being under Stern's leadership the NBA is going in the right direction. Although, with change in media coverage from being strictly about the games to now being a "Soup Box" about a players life off the court, today's stars will never reach the status of the stars of yesterday.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

The talent has expanded and shifted to different positions IMO.

The 90s players at the top might have been a little stronger with MJ, Karl, Hakeem, Shaq, Drob, Barkley, Ewing -- but that might be mostly because MJ is better than anyone in the game today. You could make the same argument for others being as good or a bit better than most of the players at the top today...but even that is debatable. 

Their simply aren't any great Centers (Yao could be one...), they are now PF's. I think there is a better spread of talent at the Wing positions for sure. More talented guys at the 2-3 spots then their were in the 90s. The PG is in a period of transition right now, but their are a good chunk of good ones. The 90s depending on the year you pick could be stronger, but who knows?

I think the talent might be a little bit better, but since it is well spread these days its tough to get a gauge as to how teams would fair against each other......

I think foreign expansion has made the league slightly better, and only helps the game. Overall I don't think their is a huge difference in terms of talent (at least not at the top), but overall I would say the league today as a whole is at least a little more talented in terms of player perspective (Not neccesarily team).


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

if you take the best 15 players from the 80s ,90s, and 00s by position who is best? 90s hands down.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i think i should clarify my question. if you could make a basketball team that would includ the best players from the decades, meaning 3pgs, 3sgs, 3sfs, 3pf, and 3centers, which team would win?


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Who has more fundementals?


Are you serious? It is virtually unanimous by any knowledgeable basketball fan, or professional analyst, that today's stars simply lack fundamentals, and/or all the mental tools in order to play today's game at the highest level. 



> Chris Paul now, or Allen Iverson in the 90's.


Allen Iverson, all day ... everyday. Allen Iverson is a once in a lifetime talent. Timmy Hardaway is better than Paul as well. Hell, so was Kevin Johnson. What about Jason Kidd? Mark Price? The best point guard of the last decade? How about a prime Gary Payton? He would have Chris Paul in a straight jacket. Chris Paul has flaws in his game. All he can do is dribble a shot clock out, and penetrate and dish. No jumper, no defense. It's why he lost his starting spot to Kirk Hinrich, on a team full of NBA All-Stars.



> Tim Duncan or David Robinson?


Tim Duncan is a rarity in today's game. He is hands down the most fundamental. That's why they call him a throw back. But even so, Tim Duncan on his best days, isn't as dominant and as good as a prime David Robinson. Believe that. Go check the stats. But Tim Duncan would look like an absolute fool trying to guard a Prime: Hakeem, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Charles Barkely, Shawn Kemp, Patrick Ewing, or going up against the defense of Dennis Rodman. Tim Duncan is one of the few stars in this league who could realistically crossover to the late 80's and early 90's NBA and still be a superstar. The others being: Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Ron Artest (would be a way better player in the 90's) ... maybe Elton Brand, etc. But that is besides the point. Tim Duncan is a 90's guy. haha ... so your point is moot.



> Charles Barkley or Kevin Garnett?


Are you serious? Charles Barkley, by unanimous vote. Barkley never dissappeared on his team in 4th quarters. Barkley virtually always had his team in the playoffs. Chuck had way more heart and determination than even KG, who by today's standards has some of the most. Dude was 6'4, and beasted the hell out of people a foot taller than him. Once again though, Garnett is also a 90's guy.



> Gilbert Arenas or Jerry Stackhouse?


First of all, comparing Arenas to Stackhouse shows your lack of basketball knowledge or understanding. Those two are completely different types of players, and caliber of players. A better comparison for Gilbert would be with: Terry Porter, Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Reggie Miller, all of whom are just as good, if not better than Arenas. Not to mention that they were actual winner, and not free-throw shooting choke artists.



> You're talking ****.


Meh, if by **** you mean "truth"... then yes, I am talking ****. Realistically, you are the one making up ****. You're the one with the agenda, as opposed to bringing your "A game" and giving facts and making legit arguments. Face it, there is a reason people don't watch professional basketball much anymore. There is a reason there is a huge slippage of play in today's basketball players compared to previous generations. There is a reason today's generation is criticized. B/c their league isn't as competitive, as good, as difficult, as physical, or as entertaining as the late 80's and 90's NBA. The late 80's and early 90's is what made the NBA a household name, and outlet for entertainment. 

Today people just refer to the new generation in referring to the criminals, juveniles, and idiots who take the court. Not a single one of them can play team basketball. Barely any, if at all, know how to think through a game, and use their heads. Intelligent basketball is dead, thanks to today's generation. Face the facts, son. They can't compare as basketball players.



> 90's basketball was all about isolation basketball. Clear out a side and go.


Are you serious?!?! You are delusional, kid. It is today's game that is all about isolation, and lack of team play. There is a microcosm of this on a daily basis. Go to your local gym, and watch. It's one guy, doing his thing. And everyone stands around and watches. When the team full of vets comes in, they beat the athleticism, and one man show, by spreading the ball around rapidly, and hitting their jump shots. 2000 era basketball is all about the isolation. It's why teams who know how to run an offense, and spread the ball have won the most rings. It's why the Spurs, Pistons, etc. are some of the best teams in the league. Everyone gets in the game, and contributes. That was the epitome of late 80's and 90's basketball. Get your facts straight, partna.




> You honestly would give up the free flowing games of the Phoenix Suns for the Charles Barkley version, where Chuck just backs a guy down from half court?


*You honestly* _don't know what you're talking about_. *You honestly * never watched prime time, 90's basketball. Any team from the 90's would dominate today's league, full of one star, one on five attractions. Look at Chuck's team from 1993... Barkley got his, but so did everyone else. Cause they knew how to play team ball. Check it:
Barkely 26 ppg
Majerle 17 ppg
Johnson 16 ppg
Dumas 16 ppg
Ceballos 13 ppg
Chambers 12 ppg
Ainge 12 ppg

Look at all those people in double figures. What NBA team do you see 7 players in double digit scoring? Exactly...

Not to mention, the modern day Phoenix Suns couldn't hold a candle to the Run n Gun of the 90's Golden State Warriors ... aka RUN TMC.
Mullin 26 ppg
Hardaway 22 ppg
Marciulionis 18 ppg
Owens 17 ppg
Spreewell 15 ppg
Alexander 11 ppg
Spencer 11 ppg



> And defense. They are big play defenders right now, but on offense they do so much more than the top players of the 90's.


LeBRONZE and Dwyane Wade = good defenders? Or as you say 'big play defenders'? Bwahaha. Now I know your smoking rock. Which one was on the all-defensive team? Right... LeBRONZE is universally known as a pathetic defender. As is Wade. Wade was more excited about joining TEAM USA, because he asked Kobe Bryant to tutor him on playing defense. LeBRONZE, still has ways to go in that department. He isn't even a factor on defense yet, let alone a 'big play defender'... bwahaha. Man is too slow laterally to be a good defender. Let alone that he doesn't even make an effort.

How do players today do more on offense? Explain... Because you're blatantly wrong. Even if they did, you do realize they are allowed free access into the lane because defense isn't allowed to be played anymore. If defense was allowed to be played, kids today wouldn't put up anything close to the numbers they are.




> After Jordan and Pippen what do you have in the 90's? A few years of Penny? A few years of GHill? Name me all of the 30/7/7 players shooting around 50 percent in the 90's and tell me about how smart and efficient the 90's players were.


Anyone can drop 30/7/7 when they are playing non-exsistent defenses. It's like they're playing on a blacktop by themselves. That's how bad the defensive rules are. As for offensive threats in the 90's? Jesus, I could be here all day. Michael Jordan, Reggie Lewis, Clyde Drexler, James Worthy, Chris Webber, Dell Curry, Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Mark Price, Tim Hardaway, John Stockton, Mookie Blaylock, Karl Malone, Jeff Hornaceck, Hersey Hawkins, Mitch Richmond, Hakeem Olajawoun, Kenny Anderson, Derrick Coleman, Otis Thorpe, David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Ron Harper, Latrell Spreewell, Chris Mullin, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, John Starks Isiah Thomas, Dikembe Mutombo, Cliff Robinson, Terry Porter, Sam Perkins, Joe Dumars, Reggie Miller, Rick Smits, Nique Wilkins, Larry Johnson, Detlef Schrempf, Larry Nance, Rod Strickland, Alonzo Mourning, Brad Doughrety, Kevin Willis, Danny Manning, Charles Oakley, Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Jamal Mashburn, Glenn Rice, Nick Van Excel, Cedric Ceballos, Robert Parish, Bernard King, Jason Kidd, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, Dennis Scott, Nick Anderson, Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill (LeBron, but better, against actual defense) ashame Hill had those brutal ankle injuries... kid was on his way to being the best Small Forward to ever play the game...

Now... what were you saying? 

Come back next time when you do your homework. Each one of those players is just as athletic as anyone in the game, but besides that, are smarter and more well rounded basketball players. Maybe not each one is better, but alot of them are. But with all these players, it shows the league wasn't as watered down as it is today.



> You'll have to explain that one. Nobody in the 90's took as much contact as either Wade or Lebron do on a nightly basis.


WHAT?!? You really need to lay off the sauce, pal. How do Wade and Bron take more contact? There is no defense being played, let alone the type of physical defense the players in the 90's faced. Seriously, how do you figure? First you say the 90's sucked because there was too much defense, and it was too physical (pansy?) and now you say Wade and LeBron take more punishment? haha you can't have it both ways, its either/or. But seriouly, how do Bron and Wade take more punishment? The BRONZE avengers get more coddling, and phantom calls then anyone has ever seen. True basketball players, fans, and analysts were disgusted with last year's playoffs and the way they were officiated. It was making a mockery of the game. A superficial shell of what it once was. And it is just that. Today's NBA is a superficial shell. Becomming, and marketed more and more like a WWF event. Except, WWF actually allows contact. 



> A guy like Paul Pierce playing at the level he plays at right now would be getting MVP talk.


No, he wouldn't. And I doubt he'd put up those numbers with real defense.



> The spread of talent in the NBA is so much greater than the 90's.


No, it isn't. It is more diluted. More teams, regardless will equal a bigger drop off in talent.



> And that's just fact. There's a much larger talent pool than ever before.


In terms of sources for the talent, yeah ... you can go over seas now and get great basketball players on the regular. However, that still doesn't make them better basketball players, because there is a larger talent pool. Talent means nothing, if you can't maximize it.




> They combined for 90 points by themselves and one got a triple double, the other came close, in a game that went down to the wire, the last time they played.


Yeah, entertaining to an extent. Like an NBA JAM video game. Yet, neither played defense on one another. That would have made it interesting. If there wasn't an intense physical and mental rivalry between the teams, spawned by physical play in previous games, then yes it would be ACTUALLY exciting. All in all, the game meant nothing. It was like a pick up game, with those two just going at it. Even so, the Bronze v.s. Wade rivalry can't be greater than Bird v.s. Nique, or Nique v.s. Jordan, for the simple fact that they haven't had AS many memorable games as the other bball rivalries had. You have to continue that pace for awhile for it to be considered a true rivalry. Until then, it was just a couple good games.



> It was total court basketball with both guys rebounding, passing, defending, diving on the floor, pushing each other to new heights.


No they weren't. Don't be so melodramatic. "Pushing each other to new heights".. haha, those two get those numbers all the time playing weak defensive teams. it just so happened two players were doing it in the same game. And yeah, no one played defense. 



> And maybe if Kobe Bryant had played at his current level in the 90's Jordan would have had his match.


Maybe. It would've been a good rivalry, but as always, Jordan would seperate himself from his counterpart. Deep down, Jordan was a winner. Through and through. Kobe is an imitation of Mike.



> Jordan was a great scorer, but Kobe is so much more explosive and well rounded with his scoring.


Actually he isn't. Kobe isn't 'so much more' explosive than Jordan. That is an exaggeration if I ever heard one. This alone proves you are a Jordan hater, and will stop at nothing to put down his game, and his generation of players. You're biased.

While Kobe is leaps and bound better in the scoring department in today's league, Jordan was a far better scorer, with more well rounded scoring. Kobe is primarily a jump shooter. Kobe I think has more offensive skills than Jordan, but he doesn't always use them. Kobe usually settles for awkward, low percentage shots. It's been a flaw in his game for awhile now. Jordan took it to the rack way more frequently than Kobe, while also shooting high percentage shots from the mid-range area. Now trust me on this, because these two are my favorite players. Kobe's explosive nights are HOF caliber and all, but they are few and far between. Mike had 'explosive' nights on the regular, so it doesn't make them look AS explosive. Kobe may be a more explosive scorer at times, but Jordan was the more consistent high level scorer. Kobe Bryant has never shot 50% from the field as a two guard. MJ did it on the regular, while averaging 30+ ppg for 8 years.



> Jordan could never shoot with the range that Kobe shoots it now.


True, but how does that make Kobe a better scorer? If anything, it shows Jordan was down for taking the shot that would fall on a more consistent basis. Thus making Jordan the better, more consistent, and effecient scorer.



> I think if they played each other the 90's version, second comeback, vs. the Kobe now, Kobe would embarrass Mike.


Of course you would think that. Because 
a) *No Personal Attacks*
b) you hate Michael Jordan
c) you have limited basketball knowledge
d) you are going all propaganda style in order to confirm your biased views

Haha, seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. Michael Jordan is one of the most effecient scorers of all-time. MJ outplayed Kobe at times when he was 39 and 40. So how could Kobe matchup with a PRIME MICHAEL JORDAN?!? haha...




> Just destroy him with no pity.


Umm, WRONG. MJ destroyed Kobe in his first comeback, and as a 39/40 year old was DOMINATING the current NBA as a crippled old man. After a game where Kobe dropped 55 on MJ's teammate Larry Hughes, Jordan guarded him the next game, and Kobe only scored like 24 points. This, a 40 year old man, against a 24 year old. MJ in his prime would BLAST Kobe. As he would BLAST anyone in today's game. He just was too well rounded a player, with more athleticism than even today's generation of players. No one can do the things with the ball that Mike did. Let's not even get into things on the defensive side of the ball. Mike brought that night in, and night out. All-defensive team damn near every year. Even winning defensive player of the year. Mike was just a flat out winner. You would never see him going out choke job style in a game 7 in front of a national audience. He'd go down swinging, and dropping 50 or 60 points. See that is the thing about Mike. He was the only person who played better than his legend (can't call it hype, cause it was real) MJ always showed up in the big games. ALWAYS. 

In 2001, he was in the MVP talks. He was averaging 27/6/5 going into the All-Star break. Shortly after he hurt his knees, and had to have surgery, and his numbers dropped off a little. But this was a man, on worn down knees, who doubled the age of most of his opponents, against the current league and DOMINATED. As a 39 year old, he dropped 23 ppg, 5 apg, 6 rpg. As a 40 year old, on knees that had to be drained sometimes 3 times a day, 20 ppg, 4 apg, 6 rpg. That is SICK!!! Imagine a prime MJ?!?! Toying with today's players both mentally, and physically. They would be at his mercy.

Kobe at this age could give old Mike a run, but against young Mike... he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. 



> And the front court players, who was on Tim Duncan's level? KG's level? What about Dirk?


First of all, Tim Duncan and KG are 90's players. Second of all, PLENT of front court players were just as good, if not better.

Hakeem
Robinson
Shaq
Ewing
Malone
Barkley

Please refrain from making yourself look like a bigger idiot. KG really can't even be lumped into the category with these guys. They were WINNERS.



> Kings vs. Lakers was a good one.


Yeah, that one was decent.



> I think Chicago-Cleveland is going to be a big one for the last stretch of this decade.


Not really. There is more of a feud between Bulls / Pistons and Bulls / Knicks. Not so much Celevland v.s. Chicago.



> Bulls vs. Knicks was a good rivalry in the sense that the Bulls always won, and there was usually a fight, and neither team scored all that much.


You just described the Lakers v.s. Kings feud, which you just described as being one of the best of the current era, which is virtually a similar outcome to Bulls v.s. Knicks... Hypocritical much? The Bulls v.s. Knicks routinely went to 7 games in the playoffs, and/or had a team fighting back from a deficit. 

Do you just get off on scoring? You obviously aren't a baller, cause real ballers appreciate good defense, and challenges. It was a challenge to score in the Bulls v.s. Knick series. Which always made each basket more meanigful, and less like throw away points. Defense, and the physicality is what made those matchups so intense. You don't get that anymore.




> Lakers vs. Celtics, Pistons vs. Celtics, Bulls vs. Pistons were probably all better rivalries, and all were from the 80's.


The Bulls / Pistons rivalry is almost identical to the Knick / Bulls rivalry. Except the Knick / Bulls rivalry was way more publicized, and drew way more attention, being that it was 2 of the 3 biggest American markets. Ratings for the NBA were at an all-time high during the early 90's... so what does that tell you?

BTW, you forgot to add Pacers v.s. Knicks, Rockets v.s. Spurs, Magic v.s. Pacers, Heat v.s. Knicks, Heat v.s. Bulls, Cavs v.s. Bulls, Sonics v.s. Phoenix, Utah v.s. Rockets, Rockets v.s. Phoenix.

Were you even alive during the 90's? Are you even qualified to talk about this, objectively?



> So if you are going with team rivalries, then the 80's slaughters the 90's. Miami-New York was possibly the worst rivalry in the history of the NBA. Those series set basketball back a few years, we've only now recovered.


Then why was NBA viewer rating at an all-time high during the 90's? Riddle me that...



> The "good" defensive teams of the 90's were only good because they clutched and grabbed.


No, they were good defenders because of positioning and understanding of how to play defense. While also being able to hand check. Once again, step your knowledge game up, before you go out making asinine statements.


Nobody was really moving their feet.[/QUOTE]
Umm, yeah. Wrong again, kid. Anymore un-proven statements, filled with biased looking glass? The foot movement was same as today, except they were actually allowed to use their chest and bump people. Thus making it more difficult to get by someone and score. It was a challenge. Not a walk through the lane, and if you get breathed on, it is a foul. Most of the stars intoday's league wouldn't be able to take that.



> The Spurs are a much more skilled defensive team than any team that played in the 90's.


How so? Explain... don't just make broad statements. The Spurs defense doesn't hold a candle to the Riley Knicks, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets defenses of the 90's. Not even close.



> So not only do we have the best offensive teams from either decade, we also have the best defensive one.


You still haven't proven either one of these. Just made off the wall statements, with no back up. And as usual, you're wrong. 

Anyone who actually lived in the 90's, and was old enough to read during them, was constantly complaining about how bad the basketball was.


> The only reason anyone watched was because of Jordan.


The GOAT. He did it all man. Movies, TV Ratings, Products, best NBA business man EVER. Most popular and beloved. He's an icon, and American Insititution.




> Also as to the officiating, the officiating is also better than the 90's, the instant replay review alone makes it better. It's not the officiating that has gotten worse, it's the *****ing about officiating that has. I blame the internet.


Nope, the officiating is piss poor. True fans of the game were put off by what happend in the NBA Finals on the biggest stage. Hell, even T-Mac said it looked rigged. I saw a play where LeBRONZE blatantly traveled in the paint, hit a shot, got bumped after it ... and after the referees let go a BLATANT travel, he had the audacity to complain and ***** like a little girl that there was no foul call. He then proceeded to go sit down and bite his nails. Also like a little girl.





> I sincerely hope you don't plan on watching basketball for the next ten years. It's going to really suck to be you.


Oh I love the current game. My second favorite player of all-time is dominating within it. LeBRONZE just isn't the savior everyone paints him to be. MJ, Bird, or Magic wouldn't go out like a ***** made fool in International Competition.

THAT'S TWICE, James brings home a bronze.

The names James, LeBRONZE James.



> Actually David Stern is less concerned with finding another Jordan


Oh he definetely is. Clearly advertising the individuals before the team. Back in Jordan's day, all you had to say was "Bulls" and you knew they meant Jordan. Now, they will say So and So v.s. So and So. They're trying to elevate their star's stature in the market place, in order to get fan and casual fan interest back in the game. And it still isn't working.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Wow, Samurai has his **** nailed down.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i think i can sum up this conversation with one story do you guys remember when kobe droped 40 points while shooting like 4 of 22 or something? he was able to get 40 by shooting alot of fts. and he is primarily a jump shooter.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

See, MJ's high scoring games were a different breed. He'd go like 21 - 25 from the field. Insane stuff like that.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Samurai. I really can't believe you wrote all that. Mark Price and Mookie Blaylock? 

Sit back and watch this upcoming season and marvel at the depth of talent on every single team. And please, try to enjoy it.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

Do you even know who Mark Price and Mookie Blaylock are? Or how good they were in there prime? Yeah, don't hate... appreciate. Mark Price would be a top 5 PG in today's league. He was nash, before nash. Maybe better...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> Do you even know who Mark Price and Mookie Blaylock are? Or how good they were in there prime? Yeah, don't hate... appreciate. Mark Price would be a top 5 PG in today's league. He was nash, before nash. Maybe better...


 Pre-Phoenix Nash and Price were pretty equivalent. That being said Price never had two seasons as good as Nash had the last seasons in Phoenix, particularly last season. Price put up good numbers but always a bit fragile - averaged less then 30 minutes per game after just age 26: injuries hurt him.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The game changes. You can't really say it's for the better or worse. It's just different. It's amusing though to see how extreme each side is about their era. 

The 90's gave us the greatest NBA team of all-time, the greatest player of all-time, the 2nd greatest dynasty of all-time and an overall collection of talent that proved to be amazingly dominant in the olympics. The Dream Team cannot be overlooked. They represented the 90's pretty well, and they were spectacular. 

Each era is special, and you're always going to have people swear by the last era. It happened in the 90's when Magic and Bird were officially out, people started the lack of fundamental "it's just not the same anymore" talk. At the end of the day, it's not the same. Things aren't the same anymore. They're different, and it's changed, but it's still basketball. 

You don't start watching a new television series expecting it to be like another one you already love, you open your mind up and let it be what it is.


----------



## jordan0386 (Jul 4, 2006)

?

...it ended, and it is time to move on

On every forum on the 'net, you find post after post about stats and percentages of why the game is worse...why can't these adults just admit that they do not like the personalities many of these NBA stars portray, and it is hard to root for someone you do not like, even if certain things they do, you like on a whole

With that said...The NBA breaks attendance records year in, year out...while tv ratings continue to decrease at the same rate...all it shows is that true "basketball" fans do what they have to do in order to enjoy basketball...and we see that fairweather(sp) fans cant put their biases(sp) aside

On another note, i believe NBA league pass packages do extremely well...so...nobody may be watching ABCs coverage...but league pass channels 430-442, are doing pretty well in my city, lol

The only thing I'm sour on, concerning pro ball is the shooting percentages...but with the increased missed shots, there are many more possesions, so many times scores still come out "good"

You really cant sit there and say you are a hoop fan, and are not giddy about the possibilities of what Lebron James will be/can become :clap:


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

As far as the rivalries and being more excited about matchups, I would say the rules have affected that a little. I'm not saying the refs because they sucked then too. Rivalries are at their best when the players have pure hatred of each other. Even better if the players/teams are good. The media overanalyzing everything and forcing the league to act on every minor league has really watered down the true bad boys. Bell/Kobe in the playoffs, that matchup will get people to tune in. Like it was with Pistons/Pacers a few years ago (still not as good as the past). Just seemed like there were more players that the opposing fan hated


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Patrick Ewing was garbage in the 90's. I'll take 2000-2004 Shaq over Ewing at any point in his career 80's or 90's.


Ewing in his absolute prime was about as good as a healthy Duncan. Btw, who in today's league would you not take 2000-2004 Shaq over? 



> And last year Yao took the next step and became a dominant big man, I think at least on the level of Patrick Ewing. Then you got Dwight Howard, and soon Greg Oden. The center position in the NBA is seeing a resurgance.


A soon-to-retire Mourning is terrifying people these days. He got DPoY votes playing 20 mpg last season. When he was 25 and a legitimate first option playing 38 mpg, he was only the fifth-best center in the league, and didn't get a single DPoY vote.



> But the 4's of this era are probably better than the entire frontcourt combined of the 90's.


No. They're no better than the 4's of the '90s. Today's group is top-heavy. But the '90s had greater depth.
Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Larry Johnson, Coleman, Rodman, Horace Grant, Vin Baker, Oakley, Mason, McKey, Cliff Robinson, Willis, Manning, Weatherspoon, Buck Williams. All of these guys averaged around 20 ppg and/or played great defense in the mid-'90s. Plus there were a bunch of good 15-20 ppg guys I haven't mentioned.
Now? Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Brand, Rasheed, Gasol, JO, Amare (hopefully), Bosh... Randolph.



> As for the powerhouse teams of the 90's, those teams existed at the expense of the rest of the league. The Magic pre-Shaq were a joke. Damon Stoudamire was the only player on the raptors. The Dallas Mavericks played Jimmy Jackson as a cornerstone of the franchise. You had a 72 win team for chrissakes! The league was a cakewalk.


Yup. Except the league wasn't a cakewalk. You had to beat that handful of amazing sides to win the title.
You don't think a team with a healthy Duncan (not quite Jordan), McGrady (Pippen), Rashard Lewis (Kukoc minus the passing ability), and the greatest rebounder of all time would absolutely destroy the rest of the league?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> If you want to add foriegn born players who played college ball in the US then I get to add even more players of starter or higher calibre players to my list: Duncan, Nash, Magloire, Deng, etc etc.


Aren't the U.S. Virgin islands part of the U.S.? And doesn't including Canada miss the point? I mean, we're really talking about how basketball has exploded overseas, and how there's scouting by NBA teams there, which has resulted in an influx of foreign talent. Right? But Canada everyone always knew about. Basketball was played there. There just happened to be no good players from there in the '90s. I don't think Nash and Magloire are a result of the NBA's new global reach. They'd have made the NBA if they'd been born a decade earlier.



> And if you want to bring in marginal players like Bol, Muresan then I can I bring up guys like Sasha Pavlovic, Sasha Vujacic, Boston Nachbar, Delfino, Songaila, blah, blah


Bol and Muresan were starters. Bol led the league in blocked shots twice (not just bpg). He made the All-Defense Second Team. He started in the playoffs. Muresan played some pretty significant minutes too, and also started in the playoffs. He had a PER of 21 in '96, and he started every single game that year.

But I agree with you that there's a fair bit more foreign talent in today's league. I just don't think the difference is signficant enough to say today's league as a whole is better than it was in the '90s.



> Sure those were good to great teams but in terms of overall depth of talent and the quality of talent per team there is IMHO frankly no comparison: 00's hands down over the 90's.


Disagree.

Btw, they were all great teams, the one's I mentioned. Not good-to-great. Great.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Btw, Mookie Blaylock was a gun. A little bit like Mike Bibby offensively, but he happened to be a lockdown defender.

And Mark Price was as good as Steve Nash.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> Do you even know who Mark Price and Mookie Blaylock are? Or how good they were in there prime? Yeah, don't hate... appreciate. Mark Price would be a top 5 PG in today's league. He was nash, before nash. Maybe better...



Price and Blaylock were terrific players, who, without a doubt would be instrumental today.

But I dont think Price is on the same level as the Nash of the last few seasons, Nash simply has found his team that fully utilizes his strengths and vice versa. Nash is an MVP.. twice.

But Price would be a league leader in assists and shooting nonetheless, whilst Blaylock would be a defensive point guard, prolly 1st, 2nd All-NBA defensive teamer.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

More depth at power forward in the 90s? I think not. And do remember that you're looking at an entire decade where players rise and fall, often vs one year of current NBA.

Duncan, KG, Dirk, Bosh, Amare, Pau, Brand,Kenyon, Randolph, Sheed, Cwebb, Frye, Villenueva, Boozer, Odom, Jamison, Murphy, Bargnani, Okafor, JO, David West, Chris Wilcox, Darko, Gooden, Al Harrington, Udonis, et al. There's plenty more that could break out this season or in the next three. That kind of depth simply wasn't there before.


----------



## nieman (Jun 6, 2006)

I love the game today because i'm a basketball junkie, but I LOVED the NBA in the 90s (all the way up until about '98). The 90s were the best era...you had the athleticism of todays players with the old-school high-bball-IQ, and fundamentals. And no matter what, you can't compare todays with a decade ago. Name a top PG today that KJ wasn't better than, and he's not even going into hall of fame. 

Today there is just too much concentration on athleticism rather than skills. After you athleticism goes, then what do you have? And today's rule changes are ridiculous, a foul for looking at someone on the perimeter...let them play sometimes. Most of the Top player's in the league have been there for 10+yrs already. Then there's a huge drop in talent for years, then the C/O '03. 

Offense was better..players shot higher%s, moved better with out the ball, passed better...and attackde better (save for a few)

Defense was SOOOOO much better....you got to play more physical, reach in alot more, and there was more man-on-man (real def). I fid it so funny that players hate playing against a zone...that sh!t is the easiest.

Games were better. Even the grind-it-out games the Knicks played weren't boring to watch (UNLESS they were playing the Cavs). Granted it's picked up last couple of seasons, but overall, it still doesn't equal. Superstar Big Men were 20 & 10 (not <9.5), with a couple of blks. BTW John Starks > Ginobili, Bosh is putting up Laettner & Googs in-prime numbers


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

Seriously. Today they value athleticism, and potential, rather than actual skill. That's why the Kobes and T-Mac's are still the best. They have athleticism, and skill.

A zone defense is pathetic. If you have any jump shooting skills, and passing skills, what so ever, a zone can be picked apart with the snap of your fingers. Its why they never could have a zone back in the day. People shot the ball and passed, way to well to get away with a zone.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> Seriously. Today they value athleticism, and potential, rather than actual skill. That's why the Kobes and T-Mac's are still the best. They have athleticism, and skill.


That's why the last several MVPs have been Steve Nash and Tim Duncan. Wow, those guys definitely rely on athleticism and not fundementals.

Do you have a point that isn't flat out wrong?

And you once again showed your "I don't watch NBA basketball anymore" card, by saying T-Mac is still the best. No one except Minstrel, possibly, and some delusional Rockets fans still have him in the top 5, and none are audacious enough to put him above Duncan, Dirk, Lebron, Wade, or Kobe.

Oh yeah there's another one. How is valuing Dirk valuing athleticism and potential rather than actual skill? Of the top 5 to 7 players the only two who come close to your criteria are Lebron and Wade, and they've proven themselves to be worth every spot of pub they get. Or is Finals MVP and a Championship not enough of a credential for you?


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> That's why the last several MVPs have been Steve Nash and Tim Duncan. Wow, those guys definitely rely on athleticism and not fundementals.


I wasn't excluding those players. Those players are better than any young, new generation player in the league.



futuristxen said:


> Do you have a point that isn't flat out wrong?


Im the one making the actual points, as to where you're addressing me in condescending fashion, and not making any actual points. And even when you think you're making a point, you back it up with nothing substantial. Let's not call names.



futuristxen said:


> And you once again showed your "I don't watch NBA basketball anymore" card,


I still watch the game, son. If you're going to respond to any of my posts, make sure you keep continuity and history in mind. Kobe Bryant is one of my favorite players of all-time. Why would I not watch basketball in this era, and not be able to watch the second greatest shooting guard, and the best swingman in the league do his thing? It would be sac religious as big of a basketball fan as I am.



futuristxen said:


> by saying T-Mac is still the best. No one except Minstrel, possibly, and some delusional Rockets fans still have him in the top 5


Clown, he was injured last year. The year prior, he was a one man wrecking crew in the Playoffs against the Mavs. It was just ashame his teammates couldn't pick up their games, Yao included. You are delusional if you don't think T-Mac is one of the most talented players in the game. He dealt with severe injuries last year, while also trying to deal with off-the court mental issues that plauged him as well. Healthy, Tracy McGrady is in discussion with Kobe Bryant as the best swingman in the game. 



futuristxen said:


> and none are audacious enough to put him above Duncan, Dirk, Lebron, Wade, or Kobe.


When was I comparing him with Duncan? He certainly has just as much impact as Dirk, maybe more. He's hands down better than Wade when healthy, and even potentially better than LeBronze as well.



futuristxen said:


> Oh yeah there's another one. How is valuing Dirk valuing athleticism and potential rather than actual skill?


What are you talking about? When did I mention Dirk? Dirk has a ton of offensive skill...



futuristxen said:


> Of the top 5 to 7 players the only two who come close to your criteria are Lebron and Wade, and they've proven themselves to be worth every spot of pub they get.


Yeah, proven to be overrated against physical defense, and non biased referees. Remember, this the BRONZE AVENGERS we're talking about here. Without help of refs, they are proven losers. Had to ride Melo Anthony's cotails, in a non biased basketball arena. LeBRONZE and Wade were stuck complaining to the refs. 



futuristxen said:


> Or is Finals MVP and a Championship not enough of a credential for you?


Because he has a chip, and a finals MVP doesn't make him the best guard in the game. Fans in general have short memory. So if someone gets injured, they right them off. Wade and Bronze have 2 BRONZE medals, thats enough credential for me.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

The second Wade or LeBronze lose any physical capabilities, they're done. They aren't going to be able to re-invent themselves like Jordan, Duncan, etc. Because they don't have an arsenal of basketball skills to make them weapons once their athleticism dissappears. Imagine, LeBronze is a bad defender now, wait until he loses his athleticism. haha, opponents will have a field day ...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

SkywalkerAC said:


> More depth at power forward in the 90s? I think not. And do remember that you're looking at an entire decade where players rise and fall, often vs one year of current NBA.


No, I was thinking of '94-'96. In fact, I think all of the guys I mentioned were in fine form in the same year, 1994.



> Duncan, KG, Dirk, Bosh, Amare, Pau, Brand,Kenyon, Randolph, Sheed, Cwebb, Frye, Villenueva, Boozer, Odom, Jamison, Murphy, Bargnani, Okafor, JO, David West, Chris Wilcox, Darko, Gooden, Al Harrington, Udonis, et al. There's plenty more that could break out this season or in the next three. That kind of depth simply wasn't there before.


As I said, my criteria was around 20 ppg and/or great defense. I forgot Jamison. I also forgot Webber, but he's an horribly inefficient scorer. A guy like Otis Thorpe (someone I didn't mention), who averaged a very efficient 14 ppg in '94 and played good defense, was more valuable.
Frye, Villanueva, Boozer, Odom, Murphy, Bargnani (!), Okafor, West, Wilcox, Darko (!!), Gooden, Harrington and Haslem don't qualify. You're basically listing regular NBA power forwards here. There were a ton of guys like that in '94 too.
Off the top of my head:
otis thorpe, chris webber, cedric ceballos (this guy actually averaged over 20 ppg and was an All-Star), sam perkins, armon gilliam, laphonso ellis, tyrone hill, juwan howard, christian laettner, dino radja, tom gugliotta, terry mills, wayman tisdale, elden campbell, loy vaught...


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

EHL said:


> It's called myth. There's not a single thing about today's NBA that isn't superior to the 90's save for:
> 
> 1) Elite defensive centers.
> 2) Less ego 10 years ago (but that's nitpicking, there has been ego in the NBA since its inception).


You're right. In ten years, we are all going to be saying, damn I wish basketball was like it was in the 2000s. LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Wade, Dirk, etc. Remember the great Lakers/Suns rivalry? Pistons/heat, etc.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

I agree with the person who said all this attitude the 90's were better is brought by the media which is all based in NY. Once they start the bandwagon begins and noone even knows what they're talking about they just know that's what they believe.


----------



## CSILASVEGAS (Jan 14, 2006)

well.. no charles barkley antics! no michael jordan tounge wagging moves to the basket, no hardcore new york knicks ball, no DENNIS RODMAN and late night parties right before a crucial game in the playoffs, no NBA on NBC with bob costas, marv albert, ahmad rashad, matt guokas,steve snapper jones (although the NBA on TNT has done a great job in making us reminicse the NBA on NBC), an increase of straight out of high school players tryin to be another kevin garnett or kobe bryant.. damn... lets bring back the 90's!


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> otis thorpe, chris webber, cedric ceballos (this guy actually averaged over 20 ppg and was an All-Star), sam perkins, armon gilliam, laphonso ellis, tyrone hill, juwan howard, christian laettner, dino radja, tom gugliotta, terry mills, wayman tisdale, elden campbell, loy vaught...


i'm sorry. most of these guys would be completely overmatched by their modern counterparts.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ If the competition was inferior, why didn't Chris Webber dominate? This was back when he was young and free from injury and could run and jump like few else. Yet he was no better than several other quality 4's at the time, and a good deal worse than some.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> ^ If the competition was inferior, why didn't Chris Webber dominate? This was back when he was young and free from injury and could run and jump like few else. Yet he was no better than several other quality 4's at the time, and a good deal worse than some.


Probably because he was a little young to dominate a league of grinding veterans. He was certainly one of the most skilled power forwards in the game at that time.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> I can't believe people are pining for the 90's.
> 
> While it was happening it was considered the worst age of basketball in people's memory. There was no offense. All of the players were selfish and played isolation basketball, and the same team basically won the title every single year.
> 
> ...



I agree. Now is the time. Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Melo, Shaq, Dirk, KG, Duncan....the stars are packed and the players are stacked.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

CSILASVEGAS said:


> well.. no charles barkley antics!


Do you not get TNT? We've gotten more Barkley in recent times than we did in his entire career. I prefer this incarnation too.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> ^ If the competition was inferior, why didn't Chris Webber dominate? This was back when he was young and free from injury and could run and jump like few else. Yet he was no better than several other quality 4's at the time, and a good deal worse than some.



Webber was extremely immature in the 90's. He was too busy calling time outs, demanding trades, and smoking green to settle down and play ball. It wasn't until he got in the Kings offensive system that he finally flourished. But he hardly dominated. He was never the best power forward in the game, regardless of era.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

His numbers while on the Kings are as good as any numbers KG has put up. You do realize that, don't you?


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

You've still yet to explain how a 40 year old Jordan, with maybe 25% of the athleticism he had in his first comeback, let alone the beginning of his career, was able to average 27 ppg 6 rpg 5 apg, before he came down with a knee injury, and the numbers dropped off to 23 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg. That is pure domination, by a 40 year old man. He was killing these kids.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> You've still yet to explain how a 40 year old Jordan, with maybe 25% of the athleticism he had in his first comeback, let alone the beginning of his career, was able to average 27 ppg 6 rpg 5 apg, before he came down with a knee injury, and the numbers dropped off to 23 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg. That is pure domination, by a 40 year old man. He was killing these kids.


You can explain to me why Jordan has failed to carry his Wizards team to the playoffs for both of the years he played with them for.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Probably because he was a little young to dominate a league of grinding veterans. He was certainly one of the most skilled power forwards in the game at that time.


Remember, you said that all those good power forwards I listed would be "completely overmatched" by today's guys. Even in his fifth season, Webber did not dominate. You'd think that if the 4's at the time were so weak, he would have been able to take advantage, right? But no, relative to the rest of the league, he was worse than he was in the 2000's. I'm not foolish enough to claim that the league has become much worse (or better). I'll attribute Webber's lower level of production to the fact that he wasn't yet in his prime.

The fact is the players from the '70s were a match for those of the '80s, who were a match for those of the '90s, who were a match for today's players.
As kflo noted in a thread like this once, Russell held his own against Wilt, who held his own against Kareem, who held his own against Hakeem, who held his own against Shaq, who has held his own against Yao.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Webber was extremely immature in the 90's. He was too busy calling time outs, demanding trades, and smoking green to settle down and play ball.


Poor excuse. In six years, he couldn't produce a single great season? Not once, against supposedly inferior competition?



> It wasn't until he got in the Kings offensive system that he finally flourished. But he hardly dominated. He was never the best power forward in the game, regardless of era.


Webber didn't play particularly well in his first season on the Kings. In fact, that was probably the worst season of his career at that point. 
And you don't need to be the best power forward in the game in order to be dominant. Dirk isn't the best power forward. Is he not dominant? 
Webber put up 27/11 one year and was a brilliant passer. That's dominant.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

nieman said:


> I love the game today because i'm a basketball junkie, but I LOVED the NBA in the 90s (all the way up until about '98). The 90s were the best era...you had the athleticism of todays players with the old-school high-bball-IQ, and fundamentals. And no matter what, you can't compare todays with a decade ago. Name a top PG today that KJ wasn't better than, and he's not even going into hall of fame.
> 
> Today there is just too much concentration on athleticism rather than skills. After you athleticism goes, then what do you have? And today's rule changes are ridiculous, a foul for looking at someone on the perimeter...let them play sometimes. Most of the Top player's in the league have been there for 10+yrs already. Then there's a huge drop in talent for years, then the C/O '03.
> 
> ...


i agree with this also, well mainly about the drafting of athletes rather than basketball players, but I still agree with some of the other points.

Anyways, Jordan said it best, today kids are getting hyped and paid like megastars... economically, yes they sell seats and merchandise.. but thats where value for money stops...

Someone who is getting paid close to $20 Million a year, better be leading his team to atleast top 4 in the league and championship contention.... no buts, ifs..

Also, how many players were drafted based on their vertical leaps, wingspan length, suicide drill time etc.. rather than their smarts, understanding of the game, skills, mastered fundamentals.

Back in the 80s, and early 90s .. and obviously before that.. players made the NBA because they were the best basketballers in the world... today, I think theres just too many superficial/bad GMs or draft analysts.. who is trying to draft the most exciting players rather than the best players.

then again, you can bring an argument about Nash and Duncan etc.. but I'm not talking about them obviously... compared to some overpaid players these 2 are actually under paid.


----------



## Samurai of Swoosh (Sep 18, 2006)

4BiddenKnight said:


> You can explain to me why Jordan has failed to carry his Wizards team to the playoffs for both of the years he played with them for.


He was injured for about a good 30+ games in 2001-2002. The next year, he was more about evalutating on court talent, in order to better recognize talent level and commitment of players for when he returned to the GM desk. Let's also ignore that his teammates weren't the best group in the world, and the fact alone that they would be relying on a 40 year old to get them to the playoffs, on bum knees, is pathetic in itself. MJ turned that franchise around as well...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Aren't the U.S. Virgin islands part of the U.S.? And doesn't including Canada miss the point? I mean, we're really talking about how basketball has exploded overseas, and how there's scouting by NBA teams there, which has resulted in an influx of foreign talent. Right? But Canada everyone always knew about. Basketball was played there. There just happened to be no good players from there in the '90s. I don't think Nash and Magloire are a result of the NBA's new global reach. They'd have made the NBA if they'd been born a decade earlier.


Sorry for the late reply as I missed you're late reply . You brought up Ewing who was born in Jamaica I believe not too far from the Virgin Islands. Not much difference from the US Virgin Islands. In addition, I don't believe there was even a significant Canadian player in the NBA in the 90's. (Rick Fox was the only signficant Canadian in the 90's but he was born in Jamaica as well I think)



> Bol and Muresan were starters. Bol led the league in blocked shots twice (not just bpg). He made the All-Defense Second Team. He started in the playoffs. Muresan played some pretty significant minutes too, and also started in the playoffs. He had a PER of 21 in '96, and he started every single game that year.


Bol and Muresan have the same impact on the game as several marginal internationals players in the league. Bol only played more then 20 mpg for just 2 seasons. Muresan only 3 season over 20 mpg. They were marginal players but then again you do love you're crappy centers like Ostertag :wink:



> But I agree with you that there's a fair bit more foreign talent in today's league. I just don't think the difference is signficant enough to say today's league as a whole is better than it was in the '90s.


It's more then bit more it's an entire roster of not just scrubs but starter or All-Star calibre players which is going to increase with the addition of guys like Garaboja, Rodriguez, Calderon, blah blah. So basically compare to the 90's, I have enough additional foreign talent to bring in starters for at the very least 2 teams with all the foreign talent and be very competitive. This is a big deald as expansion added 4 teams in the 90's



> Disagree.
> 
> Btw, they were all great teams, the one's I mentioned. Not good-to-great. Great.


I agree the Blazers, Bulls, and Sonics were great calibre teams

The Jazz were good but not great: 2 HOF calibre players, one weak center, slightly above average SG, average SF, average bench

The Lakers team of the 90s were also good but not great

The Suns team I would classify as very good as well but not great. They really lucked out in that Oliver Miller was didn't weigh a ton (the only season he wasn't overweight) and Dumas wasn't on drugs.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> You brought up Ewing who was born in Jamaica I believe not too far from the Virgin Islands. Not much difference from the US Virgin Islands. In addition, I don't believe there was even a significant Canadian player in the NBA in the 90's. (Rick Fox was the only signficant Canadian in the 90's but he was born in Jamaica as well I think)


But the US Virgin islands are part of the US, aren't they? It's almost like calling players from Hawaii foreigners. Jamaica is an entirely different country. Ewing might as well have been from Burkina Faso.
And I think you're missing my point about Canada. What we're really talking about is the increase in popularity of basketball across the globe and how NBA teams actively look for foreign talent. It is this that has lead to the influx of international players. But in the '90s basketball was popular in Canada just as it was in the US. A basketball prodigy there would have easily been found by an NBA team. It's like another state. 



> Bol and Muresan have the same impact on the game as several marginal internationals players in the league. Bol only played more then 20 mpg for just 2 seasons. Muresan only 3 season over 20 mpg. They were marginal players but then again you do love you're crappy centers like Ostertag :wink:


Bol didn't play many minutes because he had poor stamina (his height probably had a lot to do with that). Not because he wasn't a good player. He really was a very good team defender, and it's a bit of a shame that he's only remembered as a freak.
Muresan only had a five year career. He played between 24 and 30 mpg in the '90s. He averaged 15/10/2 one year, which is pretty significant impact no matter how you look at it. And you love PER, right? His average PER in the '90s was 18. He had a year of 21. That's like Tony Parker's impact last season! 
Btw, Ostertag was good. PER of 15. RbR of 19. Good defense. What more do you want from a decent starting center?



> It's more then bit more it's an entire roster of not just scrubs but starter or All-Star calibre players which is going to increase with the addition of guys like Garaboja, Rodriguez, Calderon, blah blah. So basically compare to the 90's, I have enough additional foreign talent to bring in starters for at the very least 2 teams with all the foreign talent and be very competitive. This is a big deald as expansion added 4 teams in the 90's


Again, I think including Olajuwon, Mutombo, Ewing, Radja, Bol and Muresan with the '90s players is fair, while including Duncan, Nash and Magloire with the current crop isn't. That narrows the gap by a huge amount.



> The Jazz were good but not great: 2 HOF calibre players, one weak center, slightly above average SG, average SF, average bench


How many teams have there been in NBA history with 2 HOF players roughly in their primes? You have two like that and it doesn't matter if the rest of your team is weak. But the great thing about the Jazz was that the rest of the team was actually above average. Ostertag was solid, especially in '97, which was the best season of his career statistically. Hornacek was considerably above average. A terrific third option.



> The Lakers team of the 90s were also good but not great


Magic/Worthy/Scott/Perkins/Divac and a great coach. They won 63 in '90 and 58 in '91. Made the playoffs after Magic retired. Would any team today make the playoffs without their best player?



> The Suns team I would classify as very good as well but not great. They really lucked out in that Oliver Miller was didn't weigh a ton (the only season he wasn't overweight) and Dumas wasn't on drugs.


Barkley and KJ. Then Majerle, a versatile and very capable offensive player who also happened to be an All-Defense Second teamer. Two more excellent shooters in Chambers and Ainge. Ceballos playing at genuine All-Star level _coming off the bench._ Richard Dumas, a rookie with a PER of 19. And a good interior defender in Oliver Miller.

And I forgot the '97 Rockets.

You certainly seem to have a pretty narrow definition of "great".


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> But the US Virgin islands are part of the US, aren't they? It's almost like calling players from Hawaii foreigners. Jamaica is an entirely different country. Ewing might as well have been from Burkina Faso.
> And I think you're missing my point about Canada. What we're really talking about is the increase in popularity of basketball across the globe and how NBA teams actively look for foreign talent. It is this that has lead to the influx of international players. But in the '90s basketball was popular in Canada just as it was in the US. A basketball prodigy there would have easily been found by an NBA team. It's like another state.


This point doesn't strike me as valid at all: American Samoa for example produces a lot of NFL calibre football players and has not to my knowledge produced any NBA player ever. Obviously they are gifted with professional athletic talent (they've produced a shocking 28 NFL players) but even though they still are an "American" territory they aren't producing basketball players. If they did that would be an untapped resource and an addition to the talent pool. In terms of history, culture, etc the US Virgin Islands are lot closer to Jamaica. In fact Duncan was going to be a swimmer even though he was a 7 footer till a hurrican knocked out his pool. It's all about where talent is being produced compared to where it wasn't before not the nationality of territories. It looks like the same amount of players today are coming out today as they did in the past out of the Carribean as a whole

Keeping up with this point, just because basketball was popular in the 90;s in Canada doesn't mean they produced basketball player. In fact since basketball started getting some pub there it would make sense that it would take time for youngsters to want to play basketball other then hockey which has a stranglehood up north. Put in other words, an athletic 18 yo old Candadian kid who started watching basketball wouldn't have time to devote himself to basketball while a 14 yo kid (i.e. say a Nash) could.



> Bol didn't play many minutes because he had poor stamina (his height probably had a lot to do with that). Not because he wasn't a good player. He really was a very good team defender, and it's a bit of a shame that he's only remembered as a freak.
> Muresan only had a five year career. He played between 24 and 30 mpg in the '90s. He averaged 15/10/2 one year, which is pretty significant impact no matter how you look at it. And you love PER, right? His average PER in the '90s was 18. He had a year of 21. That's like Tony Parker's impact last season!
> Btw, Ostertag was good. PER of 15. RbR of 19. Good defense. What more do you want from a decent starting center?


Stamina is part of "talent" just like everything else. Rip Hamilton wouldn't be the same player if he wasn't an Energizer bunny. Lack stamina on the other hand and that hurts. Again bol averaged only 20 mpg for just 2 season (at his best he was in for around max 40% of the game). Muresan was a classic one season wonder and even then he played only season more then 20mpg. I believe kflo correctly stated for example why is Bobby Jones not in the HOF while a very similar player in terms of PER and defensive impact Pippen is? Because of minutes: in fact www.82games.com Roland rating use minutes combined with PER which is a very fair way of measureing impact.

And keep trying to claim Ostertag is good is frankly hogwash. He only had *one *season where his PER was 15 which in terms of scoring is average in terms of offensive impact. In every other season of his entire career he was below 15 and in alot of the years he was well below. Ostertag was stiff not a decent starting center.



> Again, I think including Olajuwon, Mutombo, Ewing, Radja, Bol and Muresan with the '90s players is fair, while including Duncan, Nash and Magloire with the current crop isn't. That narrows the gap by a huge amount.


I find you're reasoning inadequate to why Duncan, Nash, and Magloire are not included and Ewing is. Olajuwon, Mutombo, and Radja are fair additions. To be fair I would add Fox to the 90's as the only Canadain/Jamaican player. Unfortunately, Bol and Muresan are not at the calibre of players I listed

In addition by you're criteria for Bol and Muresan (not all-star or clear starter calibre. Marginal players with some impact off the bench) I could still add Deng, guys like Stanislave Medvedenko (PER of 21 one year, my god he must be good), Zaza Pachulia (who actually is a good player), Olowakandi (not good by PER but played a whole lot more minutes then Bol and Muresan), Darius Songaila (average player), DeSagana Diop (not a great player nor PER but had a signficant defensive impact for Dallas), Edwardo Najera (Mexican or does he fit in the Canadian category although hes the only Mexican as far as I know whose played in the NBA), Elson (scrub bu the gets similar minutes to Bol and Muresan), Adonal Foyle (played more then Muresan and Bol combined), Biedrins (who in the future may be starter calibre), Zarko (who has a great PER but low minutes), Jake Tsakilidis (PER of 17 last year), Gadzuric (minutes plus a good PER), Marko Jaric, and so on. I could go on but this list is getting too long.

In absolute numbers, the number are strikingly different particulary with the European and South American players. A whole team of starters/All-star calibre players plus literally dozens of bench type players: huge difference IMO



> How many teams have there been in NBA history with 2 HOF players roughly in their primes? You have two like that and it doesn't matter if the rest of your team is weak. But the great thing about the Jazz was that the rest of the team was actually above average. Ostertag was solid, especially in '97, which was the best season of his career statistically. Hornacek was considerably above average. A terrific third option.
> 
> 
> Magic/Worthy/Scott/Perkins/Divac and a great coach. They won 63 in '90 and 58 in '91. Made the playoffs after Magic retired. Would any team today make the playoffs without their best player?
> ...


So every year there was a great team? Great to me is a team that would be favored (and not just a title contender) to win a title if put in a different year. The Laker team was flawed in that both Worthy and Scott were both old and Divac was just a rookie. A good team that would be a contender in almost every year but certainly not favored to win. Also I'd be careful to use win totals from expansion years (1990) as a lot of easy wins are added. In addition Sedale Threatt played great for them the year after Magic retired. Now if Magic hadn't gone with HIV that would have been a great team when Threatt was added.

I simply don't rate the players around the Jazz as highly as you do. Hornacek was a good quality starter but not an all-star calibre player. Otherwise they simply weren't that good: Ostertag sucked, Russell was average, Antoine Carr was OK, Shandon Anderson average, Eisley. That is definition of a mediocre at best surrounding squad. This is particularly important for the Jazz as both Hornacek and Stockton in both the regular season and playoffs played around 30 mpg only so both the Jazzes second and third best player only played about 2/3rds of the game. The Jazz would certainly be a title contender currently but not out and out favorites. In the current West that team would have a hell of a time getting around loaded and better teams such as SA and Dallas and they might not even beat teams like Phoenix, LAC, or 

The 97 Rockets didn't even 60 games and finished second in there division and there a great team?

Phoenix I don't have so much of a problem but they were a classic on hit wonder and they didn't have a lot of height but that's a quibble (always questioned that team as they had a very difficult time with a much less talented Laker team that had both a good offensive center -Divac and PF's - Perkins and Campbell)


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

hey pioneer how do figure that the jazz werent great, they competed in two championships and won 64 and 62 games.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Samurai of Swoosh said:


> You've still yet to explain how a 40 year old Jordan, with maybe 25% of the athleticism he had in his first comeback, let alone the beginning of his career, was able to average 27 ppg 6 rpg 5 apg, before he came down with a knee injury, and the numbers dropped off to 23 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg. That is pure domination, by a 40 year old man. He was killing these kids.


1- Noone took THAT Wizards team seriously;

2- Jordan was a circus freak, regarding attendance. How would people feel if he made 9pts in 3-15 FGA?


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

da bully said:


> hey pioneer how do figure that the jazz werent great, they competed in two championships and won 64 and 62 games.


I thought we'd gone over this - weak era. :biggrin:


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

It's completely subjective but there have been a surprising number of teams whose core has played in multiple finals and or conf. finals. Are all those teams great? I don't necessarily think so in all cases. As Skywalker said it's depends on a lot of factors

For example, stick that Utah team in the peak of the 80's would they be favored to get to Finals (not win just get there): I don't think so. For example in 88 they would be underdogs to at the very least the Lakers and Dallas teams in the Western Conference. Even though Dallas won 10 less games then the Utah teams overall IMO Dallas had much more depth in terms of quality


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

The class of 1984 got old, 1996 took over and now 2003.

/thread


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> American Samoa for example produces a lot of NFL calibre football players and has not to my knowledge produced any NBA player ever. Obviously they are gifted with professional athletic talent but even though they still are an "American" territory they aren't producing basketball players. If they did that would be an untapped resource and an addition to the talent pool. In terms of history, culture, etc the US Virgin Islands are lot closer to Jamaica.


American Samoa is a good example. They've produced many NFL caliber football players because talent is spotted there. It's part of the US. Similar thing with the US Virgin Islands. Jamaica is completely different. It's another country. Until recently, cricket has been the team sport of choice. And it's a much poorer nation. If you're counting the US Virgin Islands, you might as well include Hawaii (Cedric Ceballos). I just don't think it makes sense.



> Keeping up with this point, just because basketball was popular in the 90;s in Canada doesn't mean they produced basketball player. In fact since basketball started getting some pub there it would make sense that it would take time for youngsters to want to play basketball other then hockey which has a stranglehood up north. Put in other words, an athletic 18 yo old Candadian kid who started watching basketball wouldn't have time to devote himself to basketball while a 14 yo kid (i.e. say a Nash) could.


I'm pretty sure basketball was always popular in Canada. I have friends who grew up in Canada in the '80s following basketball. That's hardly enough in itself, but it has been popular there for a long time. 



> Stamina is part of "talent" just like everything else.... Again bol averaged only 20 mpg for just 2 season. Muresan was a classic one season wonder and even then he played only season more then 20mpg.


You mentioned Nocioni, Varejao, Nene, Bargnani, Turkoglu, Pietrus, Barbosa and Darko in your original post. None of these guys have ever played 30 mpg. Most of them are not starters. Several of them have not been around for most of this decade, and we don't know if some of them will ever start or even get close to 30 mpg. So I find it a bit funny that you're arguing about Bol, Muresan and Longley (well, you're not arguing about Longley, but you seem to have forgotten about him). 
Bol made the All-Defense Second Team ahead of Olajuwon one year. Overall impact is considered for that. He might have made it later on too if there hadn't been so many great defensive centers to compete with. 
Muresan played 24, 30 and 25 mpg. He started nearly every game in those years. He had PERs of 17-21 _and_ played above average defense. How is he very different from Ginobili? Ginobili has never played 30 mpg in his career, and only broke 30 twice in the playoffs. His PER has been 15-22. And although a good defender, he has less defensive impact than Muresan.



> And keep trying to claim Ostertag is good is frankly hogwash.


Common misconception. So many people have said it that everyone simply assumes it's true. Ostertag was there for his defense. And yes, he was a good defender. Very good team defender, above-average post defender. That he had PERs of 13-15 is a bonus, since that is mostly a measure of offensive production. So, basically, Ostertag was well above average defensively and slightly below average offensively.



> Stanislave Medvedenko (PER of 21 one year, my god he must be good)


Medvedenko has had one season of over 10 mpg. His PER that year was 13.6, and he was a poor defender. In the season in which he had a PER of 21, he only played 7 games. 



> Zaza Pachulia (who actually is a good player)


How can you call him a good player, yet label Ostertag a stiff? He is a slightly better scorer, but is a much worse rebounder, an infinitely worse defender, and he turns the ball over much more.



> Darius Songaila (average player) DeSagana Diop (not a great player nor PER but had a signficant defensive impact for Dallas)....


All these guys are significantly worse than Muresan and slightly worse than Bol. 
Diop is worse than Bol defensively and equal with him offensively, and far worse than Muresan offensively. I don't think Mexico falls in the Canadian category, but Najera is worse than Bol defensively by a large margin and worse than Muresan on both ends. Elson and Olowokandi are crap (since when did mpg become an equal measure to PER for a player's impact?). Zarko plays 8 mpg. Tsakalidis doesn't have the defense (though, admittedly, he appears to have had a really good season, and seemed to do all right whenever I watched the Grizzlies). Gadzuric played 12 mpg last season. He did play 22 mpg one season. But hasn't he spent nearly his whole life in the US? 
Find me guys who are All-Defense teamers or are good defenders who have PERs well above 15 playing close to 30 mpg.



> So every year there was a great team?


Nearly every year. Like I said, I think the league was top-heavy in the '90s. Same thing in the '80s.



> The Laker team was flawed in that both Worthy and Scott were both old and Divac was just a rookie. A good team that would be a contender in almost every year but certainly not favored to win. Also I'd be careful to use win totals from expansion years (1990) as a lot of easy wins are added. In addition Sedale Threatt played great for them the year after Magic retired. Now if Magic hadn't gone with HIV that would have been a great team when Threatt was added.


Worthy was 29 and having a career-high in mpg. Scott was also 29 and playing some pretty big minutes. While Divac was a rookie in '90, they had Orlando Woolridge and AC Green right in their primes. And the next year Divac started playing some significant minutes and had a PER that was at the level it was for the rest of his career.
In '92 Magic was replaced by an average player, Worthy missed 28 games and had one of the worst seasons of his career, Perkins missed 19 games, and Divac missed 46 -- yet they still made the playoffs! That was a bunch of good players with a good coach. Add a top-10 player of all time (the guy who the system was actually built for) and you have a great team. 
Also, with the expansion thing, how is it different today in terms of difficulty? The talent was spread among 27 teams back then. Now it's 30 teams. Sure some of the teams were terrible in those days, but that just means the rest of the teams were stronger.



> I simply don't rate the players around the Jazz as highly as you do....That is definition of a mediocre at best surrounding squad. This is particularly important for the Jazz as both Hornacek and Stockton in both the regular season and playoffs played around 30 mpg only so both the Jazzes second and third best player only played about 2/3rds of the game. The Jazz would certainly be a title contender currently but not out and out favorites. In the current West that team would have a hell of a time getting around loaded and better teams such as SA and Dallas and they might not even beat teams like Phoenix, LAC, or


I think having a third option who is almost All-Star quality, as well as a bunch of average players makes a supporting cast above average. But even if you do see it as no better than average, remember that we're not talking about a supporting cast to surround a superstar. We're talking about the supporting cast around _two_ HOFers in their primes.
Btw, Stockton played 35 mpg in the regular season and 37 in the playoffs. Hornacek played 32 and 35 mpg in the playoffs. It's understandable given the Jazz's regular season dominance. Spurs do it too.
Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous to say the Jazz might not even beat the Clippers. I think they'd have won the title last season without much difficulty.



> The 97 Rockets didn't even 60 games and finished second in there division and there a great team?


Regular season injuries. They were 33-8 with Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler in the lineup. Translates to 66 wins. Blew out the Bulls without Barkley. And they were almost healthy in the playoffs. They just matched up very poorly with the Jazz (horrible at point guard and the Jazz had good defense at C, PF and SG). Even then, they only lost Game 6 because of the refs. They had a decent chance of beating the Bulls.
Olajuwon/Barkley/Elie/Drexler/Maloney/Willis/E.Jones is a fantastic lineup. The big three were still in the tail-ends of their primes.



> Phoenix I don't have so much of a problem but they were a classic on hit wonder and they didn't have a lot of height but that's a quibble (always questioned that team as they had a very difficult time with a much less talented Laker team that had both a good offensive center -Divac and PF's - Perkins and Campbell)


Fair criticism. But the Bulls also had trouble with teams with such teams. I honestly think the '93 Rockets would have won it all if they hadn't been screwed in Game 7 against the Sonics.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

To sum up so I don't have to repeat myself:

I think Muresan and Longley were starting caliber players. Bol too, but he at least is debatable.
Jamaica is more foreign than the US Virgin Islands, and Canada might as well be another US state for the purposes of this discussion.
The foreign talent today is better, but the '90s were lucky enough to get a couple of all-time greats out of Africa and one out of Jamaica, which narrows the gap considerably.
The Jazz, Lakers and Rockets were great teams.

And Ostertag rules.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> American Samoa is a good example. They've produced many NFL caliber football players because talent is spotted there. It's part of the US. Similar thing with the US Virgin Islands. Jamaica is completely different. It's another country. Until recently, cricket has been the team sport of choice. And it's a much poorer nation. If you're counting the US Virgin Islands, you might as well include Hawaii (Cedric Ceballos). I just don't think it makes sense.


I actually watched a documentary on American Samoa. Talent is spotted there because they have a huge football following. They have access to basketball but it's not part of there culture as much as football (It's like hockey in Canada). The culture in countries in South America and and South/East Europe has become changed to reflect to basketball influences. Also not only is cricket ahead of basketball in all of the Carribean (inc the US Virgin Islands) soccer is ahead of it: the US Virgin Islands are very similar to Jamiaca. All the Carribean countries with a heavy African presence are much more similar to the each other then the US 



> I'm pretty sure basketball was always popular in Canada. I have friends who grew up in Canada in the '80s following basketball. That's hardly enough in itself, but it has been popular there for a long time.


Maybe: I know hockey had a stranglehold and still does up north but at least with the basketball and baseball teams added they have more non-ice sports on TV



> You mentioned Nocioni, Varejao, Nene, Bargnani, Turkoglu, Pietrus, Barbosa and Darko in your original post. None of these guys have ever played 30 mpg. Most of them are not starters. Several of them have not been around for most of this decade, and we don't know if some of them will ever start or even get close to 30 mpg. So I find it a bit funny that you're arguing about Bol, Muresan and Longley (well, you're not arguing about Longley, but you seem to have forgotten about him).
> Bol made the All-Defense Second Team ahead of Olajuwon one year. Overall impact is considered for that. He might have made it later on too if there hadn't been so many great defensive centers to compete with.
> Muresan played 24, 30 and 25 mpg. He started nearly every game in those years. He had PERs of 17-21 _and_ played above average defense. How is he very different from Ginobili? Ginobili has never played 30 mpg in his career, and only broke 30 twice in the playoffs. His PER has been 15-22. And although a good defender, he has less defensive impact than Muresan.


Bol had what two seasons over 20 mpg?: all the other guys I listed are starter calibre and will start or be the main reserve off the bench for more then just year. Guys like Radja and Muresan each had three years (if you count playing _17 minutes_ a game having an impact and a good year). All the guys I've listed will play far more years IN the NBA. This is about the impact of talent in a decade vs another one that is just a little over half way done and playing only 3 years out of ten in a decade is a lot different then one player playing 30 minutes for the entire decade. It's not surprising that that the last two seasons has seen the biggest increase in level of play because a lot of the talented foreigners are only getting going over the last few years (they haven't played since 2000 because most weren't even drafter). BTW, I'm sure Pops would love to have Muresan instead of Ginobili



> Common misconception. So many people have said it that everyone simply assumes it's true. Ostertag was there for his defense. And yes, he was a good defender. Very good team defender, above-average post defender. That he had PERs of 13-15 is a bonus, since that is mostly a measure of offensive production. So, basically, Ostertag was well above average defensively and slightly below average offensively.


Jerry Sloan loved him to death too  and made sure to play him over 20 mpg for all of 4 out of his 9 utah season). I just don't see the big impact he had either: he had poor lateral quickness and was an OK shotblocker (not great) for a few seasons earlier in his career. That one good attribute dropped of as well.



> Medvedenko has had one season of over 10 mpg. His PER that year was 13.6, and he was a poor defender. In the season in which he had a PER of 21, he only played 7 games.
> 
> How can you call him a good player, yet label Ostertag a stiff? He is a slightly better scorer, but is a much worse rebounder, an infinitely worse defender, and he turns the ball over much more.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to make these guys into All-stars just pointing out that these guys are getting similar amount of minutes and a lot of them for several seasons and there are a lot more of them out there versus a guy like Bol whose highest PER was 11 and only had two seasons more then 20mpg? Stamina wasn't the only issue for him. In any case the 90's are full of additional bench players which weren't available to teams in the 90's. A guy like Diop on the whole sucks (similar to what I think Bol) but to Dallas he played a vital role. 



> Nearly every year. Like I said, I think the league was top-heavy in the '90s. Same thing in the '80s.


That's a very loose definition of "great" IMO.



> Worthy was 29 and having a career-high in mpg. Scott was also 29 and playing some pretty big minutes. While Divac was a rookie in '90, they had Orlando Woolridge and AC Green right in their primes. And the next year Divac started playing some significant minutes and had a PER that was at the level it was for the rest of his career.
> In '92 Magic was replaced by an average player, Worthy missed 28 games and had one of the worst seasons of his career, Perkins missed 19 games, and Divac missed 46 -- yet they still made the playoffs! That was a bunch of good players with a good coach. Add a top-10 player of all time (the guy who the system was actually built for) and you have a great team.
> Also, with the expansion thing, how is it different today in terms of difficulty? The talent was spread among 27 teams back then. Now it's 30 teams. Sure some of the teams were terrible in those days, but that just means the rest of the teams were stronger.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Also not only is cricket ahead of basketball in all of the Carribean (inc the US Virgin Islands) soccer is ahead of it: the US Virgin Islands are very similar to Jamiaca. All the Carribean countries with a heavy African presence are much more similar to the each other then the US


I'm pretty sure cricket isn't very big in the US Virgin Islands. I've never heard of them competing at any level, while I do know of several other Caribbean teams. And soccer is ahead of basketball in nearly every country in the world.
And just from what I've seen and read about the US Virgin Islands, it's quite different to countries like Jamaica. More prosperous, more like America. 



> Guys like Radja and Muresan each had three years (if you count playing _17 minutes_ a game having an impact and a good year).


Radja actually had four years, playing an average of 33 mpg. Muresan averaged 26 mpg. I don't know where you're getting 17 from.



> All the guys I've listed will play far more years IN the NBA. This is about the impact of talent in a decade vs another one that is just a little over half way done and playing only 3 years out of ten in a decade is a lot different then one player playing 30 minutes for the entire decade.


Fair enough. But some of the guys you listed really have proven nothing and we don't know if they will ever become starting caliber players. Nene has done very little in this league and he just missed an entire season. Bargnani has accomplished nothing. Varejao has done nothing but rebound well in very limited minutes. Pietrus has done very little in three years and has shown no signs of improvement. Darko is considered one of the biggest busts of all time. People are getting excited about a few blocked shots, but it's really too early to declare him a sure-fire starting caliber player. It would be great if these guys all developed into starters, but we don't know if that will happen in the next three years.



> BTW, I'm sure Pops would love to have Muresan instead of Ginobili


Ginobili is better, but not by a whole lot. You haven't yet explained why you think Muresan is a scrub while guys like Pietrus are starting-caliber players. It's like the Ostertag thing -- he's a freak, so his actual ability has been forgotten.



> Jerry Sloan loved him to death too  and made sure to play him over 20 mpg for all of 4 out of his 9 utah season). I just don't see the big impact he had either: he had poor lateral quickness and was an OK shotblocker (not great) for a few seasons earlier in his career. That one good attribute dropped of as well.


I was referring to the '97 Utah Jazz (both in this thread and in the one in NBA History), which featured Ostertag at his glorious peak. 
He was much more than an ordinary shot-blocker. He averaged 3.5 blocks per 40 minutes for his entire career. That is very impressive. In fact, 3.5 per 40 would have probably led the league last year.



> I'm not trying to make these guys into All-stars just pointing out that these guys are getting similar amount of minutes and a lot of them for several seasons and there are a lot more of them out there versus a guy like Bol whose highest PER was 11 and only had two seasons more then 20mpg? Stamina wasn't the only issue for him. In any case the 90's are full of additional bench players which weren't available to teams in the 90's. A guy like Diop on the whole sucks (similar to what I think Bol) but to Dallas he played a vital role.


Most of them are not getting a similar amount of minutes to Muresan, Bol and Longley. Those who are are clearly inferior.
And you don't judge Bol by PER. He was exclusively a defender. He had a similar PER to Diop (starting center for a top-4 team), but he was a far better defender. Don't you remember Bol playing? He was a truly frightening presence in the middle. He averaged 7 blocks per 40 minutes. His sheer length enabled him to be effective in post defense too (though he could be exploited by quicker centers). The Sixers often used single coverage on centers when he was on the floor (though Bol may not have been the sole reason for that). I saw him guard Shaq one-on-one for extended minutes. Blocked him about three times.



> Seems more appropriate to count 89-90 Lakers team as a remnant of the 80's. In terms of both teams though Scott was significanlty worse: I don't think he ever recovered from the hamstring injury from 89 (his PER's nosedived from 19 to 14.4 in 91). His decline is a big reason why I don't think the Lakers team was good but not great. Terry Teagle was also a bad backup and Cooper wasn't around to give to negate Scott's decline. When he did play in 89-90 he was awful. Magic was Magic but that backcourt around him was not good.


If the '89-90 Lakers were a remnant of the '80s, then the '99-00 were from the '90s. I like to associate teams with the year in which they played in the playoffs.
And although Scott was worse, Worthy was better. He was playing more minutes, yet his PER was almost a career-high too.
Cooper wasn't there, but the '91 Lakers were better defensively than all the earlier Lakers sides. And Woolridge (PER 18), Divac (PER 18 with good defense and great passing) and Perkins (PER 15 with good defense) were there.
That team was great. They were easily beaten in the Finals by an even better side (IMO, the Bulls of the first threepeat were better than version 2). But it's worth noting that both Worthy and Scott got injured and missed Game 5 and half of Game 4.



> In a matter of two years 4 teams were added btw 88-90 - causes a dilution of talent across the board. However, teams that were able to maintain reasonable talent had a lot more minnows around


I don't get this. How does it make a difference when the teams are added? There are even more teams now. That means there's greater dilution.



> They would not have beaten SA where TP/Ginobili > Stockton/Horn. Duncan = Malone. I like the SA supporting cast more then the Jazz. I think Dallas also causes a lot of matchup difficulties for them: Stockton and Hornacek weren't exactly known for there quick feet and Dallas has a plethora of quick guards


How are Parker and Ginobili better than Stockton and Hornacek? Stockton, even in '97, is clearly the best of the four. His playmaking wasn't fully reflected in the stats. And Hornacek had a PER of 19 and played better defense than either Parker or Ginobili did last season (both had relatively poor seasons defensively, while Hornacek was a consistently good defender).
Malone had the best season of his career in '97, while Duncan had his worst last season. Duncan posted good playoff numbers, but that was because the Mavs had no one to guard him. Malone in '97 was considerably better than Duncan last season.
Bruce Bowen declined quite a lot last season. There was Finley, but after that the Spurs had pretty much no one of significance. The Jazz had a bunch of decent players outside of the big three. 
Dallas simply would not be able to contain Malone. Even an injured Duncan was able to wreak havoc against that frontcourt. Again, Hornacek was a good defender, and very versatile too. Stockton was quick (not fast, but definitely quick). The Jazz were the second best offensive team in '97, only slightly behind the Bulls. They'd beat the Mavs.



> That was one of the slowest teams I've ever seen. Plus these guys were old and injuries are part of the game otherwise we might be debating whether that recent Laker team with 4 HOF's was one of the greatest ever.


Does it matter that they were slow? They were 8th in pace factor, btw. Injuries are part of the game, but it's the playoffs that count. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler were all right for the playoffs. And the team was virtually unstoppable when those three were together. They started the season 21-2 before the first injuries came.



> I would have loved to have seen it: Very dissappointed that none of the Bulls teams went up against a prime Olajuwan or even against Robinson. They had a tough time with Divac who was awfully young and inexperienced not sure how they would have fared against real HOF center in his prime.


They never fared well against the Rockets or the Spurs. From ’90 to’93, they were 4-12 against the Rockets and the Spurs. And some of those Houston and SA sides weren’t particularly good.



> The one Bulls team that I think is immune to this criticism is the 69 win team with Brian Williams with his head on straight. Probably the best all around defensive team in terms of being able to put a good defender at every single position that I've ever seen but they only had him for the tail end of the season and playoffs.


IMO the Bulls of the second threepeat struggled even more against good centers. The earlier Bulls sides were at least able to contain them, but the second set had centers score copiously against them. The ’97 Bulls were 4-4 against the three 50+ win sides with good centers (Knicks, Rockets, Lakers).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> I'm pretty sure cricket isn't very big in the US Virgin Islands. I've never heard of them competing at any level, while I do know of several other Caribbean teams. And soccer is ahead of basketball in nearly every country in the world.
> And just from what I've seen and read about the US Virgin Islands, it's quite different to countries like Jamaica. More prosperous, more like America.


Don't know about that they have cricket facilities and host other West Indies countries for cricket tournaments. Any US Virgin Island posters out there to comment?



> Radja actually had four years, playing an average of 33 mpg. Muresan averaged 26 mpg. I don't know where you're getting 17 from.


Radja 4th years he only played in 25 games. Muresan only had 3 season where he averaged more then 20 mpg and I was referring to one of the Bol seasons for the 17 mpg.



> Fair enough. But some of the guys you listed really have proven nothing and we don't know if they will ever become starting caliber players. Nene has done very little in this league and he just missed an entire season. Bargnani has accomplished nothing. Varejao has done nothing but rebound well in very limited minutes. Pietrus has done very little in three years and has shown no signs of improvement. Darko is considered one of the biggest busts of all time. People are getting excited about a few blocked shots, but it's really too early to declare him a sure-fire starting caliber player. It would be great if these guys all developed into starters, but we don't know if that will happen in the next three years.


These busts have played as many minutes or more then Bol and Muresan. Pietrus (at SF with Dunleavey moving to PG) is pegged as a starter and Darko is also pegged as a starter for this upcoming year. Last year, Darko was playing starter minutes for Orlando by the end of the season. AV means a lot more to the Cavs then rebounding and he was a big reason the Cavs got to the second round last year



> Ginobili is better, but not by a whole lot. You haven't yet explained why you think Muresan is a scrub while guys like Pietrus are starting-caliber players. It's like the Ostertag thing -- he's a freak, so his actual ability has been forgotten.


Ginobili is a lot better in terms of impact because barring major injury he will have averaged 30 mpg at least for the majority entire 00 decade. We're talking about player impact again on quality of play. Ostertag playing average for one year or Muresan and Radja for 3 years is still limited impact. Guys like Nene and Darko while still having a lot to prove when given playing time have played at a starter level and here's the big difference they are young and don't have the very odd bodies of guys liek Bol and Muresan. Muresan had a tumor I believe that made him grow so odd: these guys simply don't last. 

Another way to look at this since we are comparing a not finished decade is looking at the last 3 years: all the players I mentioned played at the same time (even the scrubs) and the most quality starters or backups except for Bargnani. The players you have mentioned played short bits and at different stages of the 90's: Radja mid to late 90's. Bol only early 90's. Muresan mid 90's. Taking a look at the other forieng talent this was also a factorDrazen early 90's only. Sarunas early to mid 90's. The 00's benefit not only from having a lot more foriegn players but there is now a continuous pipeline with concentrated talent at the same time. Not only did the 90's have less foreign players but it was diluted with a lot of those players playing only for parts of that decade. There is no reason to think that the 90's will have this problem as more foreign players are being brought in yearly it seems.



> I was referring to the '97 Utah Jazz (both in this thread and in the one in NBA History), which featured Ostertag at his glorious peak.
> He was much more than an ordinary shot-blocker. He averaged 3.5 blocks per 40 minutes for his entire career. That is very impressive. In fact, 3.5 per 40 would have probably led the league last year.


Meh, just because you're shotblocker makes you good defender? His lateral quickness was shoddy at best shown by the fact he averageed 3 fouls in just 23.6 mpg that year.



> If the '89-90 Lakers were a remnant of the '80s, then the '99-00 were from the '90s. I like to associate teams with the year in which they played in the playoffs.
> And although Scott was worse, Worthy was better. He was playing more minutes, yet his PER was almost a career-high too.
> Cooper wasn't there, but the '91 Lakers were better defensively than all the earlier Lakers sides. And Woolridge (PER 18), Divac (PER 18 with good defense and great passing) and Perkins (PER 15 with good defense) were there.
> That team was great. They were easily beaten in the Finals by an even better side (IMO, the Bulls of the first threepeat were better than version 2). But it's worth noting that both Worthy and Scott got injured and missed Game 5 and half of Game 4.


I watched every single Laker playoff game from 80's till Shaq got traded. Scott getting worse was a huge factor for that team and can't be underestimated because it correlated with Cooper getting old at the same time. They were loaded upfront but Scott/Teagle/Cooper made for a bad backcourt around Magic. That was a big problem for that team as Scott was the guy who actually defended the PG's and both his defense/offense declined after his hamstring injury: Not only did the Lakers not get any offense from the backcourt besides Magic they werent good at defending the backcourt either.



> I don't get this. How does it make a difference when the teams are added? There are even more teams now. That means there's greater dilution.


That's why the foreign talent makes such a big difference: there is more then enough foreign talent to completely fill 3-4 mediocre teams. That wasn't there in the 90's expansion. In addition I see the same pattern in the 80's just the opposite: ABA/NBA merge ended up in a lot of the ABA teams folding but that meant more talent per team = high quality NBA basketball in the 80's



> How are Parker and Ginobili better than Stockton and Hornacek? Stockton, even in '97, is clearly the best of the four. His playmaking wasn't fully reflected in the stats. And Hornacek had a PER of 19 and played better defense than either Parker or Ginobili did last season (both had relatively poor seasons defensively, while Hornacek was a consistently good defender).
> Malone had the best season of his career in '97, while Duncan had his worst last season. Duncan posted good playoff numbers, but that was because the Mavs had no one to guard him. Malone in '97 was considerably better than Duncan last season.
> Bruce Bowen declined quite a lot last season. There was Finley, but after that the Spurs had pretty much no one of significance. The Jazz had a bunch of decent players outside of the big three.
> Dallas simply would not be able to contain Malone. Even an injured Duncan was able to wreak havoc against that frontcourt. Again, Hornacek was a good defender, and very versatile too. Stockton was quick (not fast, but definitely quick). The Jazz were the second best offensive team in '97, only slightly behind the Bulls. They'd beat the Mavs.


Duncan played good in the prior series: he did good in the playoffs because he was healthy by the time the playoffs came around. Ginobili had an injuries in the season but also came around in the playoffs, His PER was actually equal that to Stockton's in 97 as well (MG 22.4 vs JS 22.1). Ginobili is easliy the best defender of the group and Hornacek was a reasonable defender but nothing exceptional. Just looking at the matchup Stockton wasn't the best defender against quick PG's and neither was Hornacek. It's simply a bad matchup for the Jazz as they would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of footspeed. Both Stockton and Hornacket were reasonably quick on O but not on D. For example, Stockton didn't exactly do a great job on Van Exel (NVE 19.2 on FG 42%vs JS 13.2 on 51%) in 97 during playoffs and Parker is signifcantly better then the 97 Van Exel.

Lumping a bunch of average role players for the Jazz and somehow makeing them the difference is also a stretch IMO: the other Spurs aren't bad at all and have several players who match up well for the Jazz. Exluding Finley, Nazr would be a good big to throw at Malone, plus Horry. In addition a guy like Brent Barry wouldn't be too taxed on the defensive end havign to guard Russell. Compare them to Ostertag, Russell, Eisley, and Anderson? I think this favors the Spurs as well. Also Bowen is a lot like Bol: only to be judged on defense which again was at the top of league last year

Against Dallas, same problems for the Jazz too much athleticism on the side of Dallas. This is an even series as I don't see the Jazz having anybody to cover Nowitzki just like no one on Dallas could guard Malone.



> Does it matter that they were slow? They were 8th in pace factor, btw. Injuries are part of the game, but it's the playoffs that count. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler were all right for the playoffs. And the team was virtually unstoppable when those three were together. They started the season 21-2 before the first injuries came.


Injuries are expected though for this team: put it this way would you expect this team to be healthy even a majority of times if I randomly replayed that season 10 times? No I would expect considering there ages 9 out of ten times that at least one of those 3 would be hurt for a large chunk of the season. The 97 team was only hypothetically a great team just like the 04 Lakers.

Plus wasn't this the team that had no bench? I see a lot of minutes for guys like Randy Livingston and Matt Muloney


> They never fared well against the Rockets or the Spurs. From ’90 to’93, they were 4-12 against the Rockets and the Spurs. And some of those Houston and SA sides weren’t particularly good.
> 
> IMO the Bulls of the second threepeat struggled even more against good centers. The earlier Bulls sides were at least able to contain them, but the second set had centers score copiously against them. The ’97 Bulls were 4-4 against the three 50+ win sides with good centers (Knicks, Rockets, Lakers).


The 97 team only had Dele for the final 7 games of the season. So I would agree with you're assesment except for the short run in the playoffs with Dele


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Radja 4th years he only played in 25 games. Muresan only had 3 season where he averaged more then 20 mpg and I was referring to one of the Bol seasons for the 17 mpg.


OK, looking at Bol's stats now, I realise he had his best seasons in the '80s. So he probably shouldn't be in this discussion. 



> These busts have played as many minutes or more then Bol and Muresan. Pietrus (at SF with Dunleavey moving to PG) is pegged as a starter and Darko is also pegged as a starter for this upcoming year. Last year, Darko was playing starter minutes for Orlando by the end of the season. AV means a lot more to the Cavs then rebounding and he was a big reason the Cavs got to the second round last year


The only guys you mentioned who have played 25+ mpg are Pietrus and Nene. And neither are nearly as good as Muresan. Darko played 20 mpg for the Magic last season. I don't think he has started in a single preseason game. Varejao played 16 mpg for the Cavs in the regular season and 18 mpg in the playoffs. Statistically, he got worse from his rookie season. Though from observation, his defense improved.



> Ginobili is a lot better in terms of impact because barring major injury he will have averaged 30 mpg at least for the majority entire 00 decade. We're talking about player impact again on quality of play.


You were saying Muresan was not a starting caliber player. We're not talking about their value over a decade. Muresan at his best played similar minutes to Ginobili, had a similar PER and had more defensive impact.



> Another way to look at this since we are comparing a not finished decade is looking at the last 3 years: all the players I mentioned played at the same ….The players you have mentioned played short bits and at different stages of the 90's….Not only did the 90's have less foreign players but it was diluted with a lot of those players playing only for parts of that decade….


Sounds about right. Except, again, I think the '90s lucked out with some all-time greats. As a viewer, there's a lot more value to me in watching superstars. They define the league, really. Still, because of sheer numbers, I'd say this decade will have the edge in terms of foreign talent.



> Meh, just because you're shotblocker makes you good defender? His lateral quickness was shoddy at best shown by the fact he averageed 3 fouls in just 23.6 mpg that year.


You said Ostertag was merely an OK shot-blocker. I was simply showing that he was much better than that. But yes, the vast majority of good shot-blockers are in fact good team defenders. Blocked shots are a fraction of the total number of shots that are altered. A guy who blocks a lot of shots alters many more. And Ostertag was a decent post defender. He was slow, but he was strong and he knew what to do. He had 5.1 fouls per 40 minutes. Olajuwon is the best defender I've seen. He had over 4 per 40 minutes in some seasons. Mutombo had 4. Ewing, Zo, Buck Williams, Oakley and Mason all had 4-5 during their best defensive years. Kemp had 5-6. It's a sign of aggressiveness. If you're a good defender, that’s usually a good thing. If you're Stromile Swift, it's not. Ostertag was more Mutombo than Swift.



> Scott getting worse was a huge factor for that team and can't be underestimated because it correlated with Cooper getting old at the same time. They were loaded upfront but Scott/Teagle/Cooper made for a bad backcourt around Magic. That was a big problem for that team as Scott was the guy who actually defended the PG's and both his defense/offense declined after his hamstring injury: Not only did the Lakers not get any offense from the backcourt besides Magic they werent good at defending the backcourt either.


Nearly every team has a weakness. OK, maybe the '87 Lakers didn't. I don't see the Jazz as having a major weakness, either. But the '86 Celtics had a weak backcourt. The Sonics had no big-time scorer. The Bulls, Blazers and Suns were all weak at C. The current Spurs and Mavs are also weak there. The '97 Rockets at PG. The threepeat Lakers had little outside of Shaq and Kobe.
I don't think a team needs to be good at all positions in order to be considered great. A weak position is OK. The rest of the team just has to be overwhelmingly strong. The early '90s Lakers had an excellent frontcourt and they had Magic Johnson. In ’92, Magic was replaced by Threatt, and Worthy, Perkins and Divac missed a combined 93 games, yet they still made the playoffs. Paulo thinks it was sheer emotion or Magic’s ghost or something magical like that. I say they were simply a great team, which meant that they could win despite those massive setbacks.



> That's why the foreign talent makes such a big difference: there is more then enough foreign talent to completely fill 3-4 mediocre teams. That wasn't there in the 90's expansion.


If there are three extra teams now, then isn’t the overall effect nil? I mean, there were 23 teams in ’88. The talent from 23 then had to be spread over 27 teams in the ‘90s. That’s dilution. Now there are 30 teams. Further dilution. But there is perhaps enough foreign talent to fill the three extra teams. So we’re back to where we were in the ‘90s.



> In addition I see the same pattern in the 80's just the opposite: ABA/NBA merge ended up in a lot of the ABA teams folding but that meant more talent per team = high quality NBA basketball in the 80's


I don’t get this either. Previously, a lot of guys who would have made the NBA played in the ABA instead. After the merger, all American talent went to the NBA. Just as it did in every other era. So I don’t see how that means the ‘80s had superior talent. The merger just reversed the dilutive effect of the ABA.



> Duncan played good in the prior series: he did good in the playoffs because he was healthy by the time the playoffs came around. Ginobili had an injuries in the season but also came around in the playoffs, His PER was actually equal that to Stockton's in 97 as well (MG 22.4 vs JS 22.1). Ginobili is easliy the best defender of the group and Hornacek was a reasonable defender but nothing exceptional. Just looking at the matchup Stockton wasn't the best defender against quick PG's and neither was Hornacek. It's simply a bad matchup for the Jazz as they would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of footspeed….
> Lumping a bunch of average role players for the Jazz and somehow makeing them the difference is also a stretch IMO: the other Spurs aren't bad at all and have several players who match up well for the Jazz. Exluding Finley, Nazr would be a good big to throw at Malone, plus Horry….


Duncan averaged 18/9 against the Kings, while being guarded by Shareef Abdur-Rahim (no defense), Ron Artest (SF) and Brad Miller (no defense). He might have been healthier in the playoffs (or, more likely, he was saving himself for them), but he just wasn’t the Duncan we are used to. He’d have fared much worse against the Jazz, who had very good post defense and interior defense.
Ginobili played no better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Hornacek’s defense was better. And you know playmaking ability isn’t fully reflected in PER. It only counts assists. As with blocked shots, for every assist, there are several good passes that aren’t shown in the numbers. Stockton was easily better than Ginobili. He played more minutes too, both in the regular season and in the playoffs.
Hornacek was on Jordan for most of the ’97 Finals. He did a pretty good job. The Jazz had another good defender in Bryon Russell. They had a good defender at every single position. And their backcourt did a good job against the Lakers with Kobe and NVE in ’98. In ’96, the Jazz took the Sonics to seven games. The Sonics were athletic, and they were a great team. The Jazz were considerably worse in ’96 -- won nine fewer games, Malone’s PER was 26 rather than 29, and Ostertag and Russell weren’t yet good players. The ’97 Jazz would have been a match for that Seattle side.
Mohammed is a poor defender. Malone would have destroyed him. And Horry showed last season that he has nothing left.



> Injuries are expected though for this team: put it this way would you expect this team to be healthy even a majority of times if I randomly replayed that season 10 times? No I would expect considering there ages 9 out of ten times that at least one of those 3 would be hurt for a large chunk of the season. The 97 team was only hypothetically a great team just like the 04 Lakers.
> Plus wasn't this the team that had no bench? I see a lot of minutes for guys like Randy Livingston and Matt Muloney


They weren’t injured for the playoffs, and that’s what matters. These guys gear themselves that way, even if it means sacrificing a great regular season record.
Kevin Willis and Eddie Johnson came off the bench. Matt Maloney started at PG. That was their weak position. He was a good defender, but that’s about it.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

> The only guys you mentioned who have played 25+ mpg are Pietrus and Nene. And neither are nearly as good as Muresan. Darko played 20 mpg for the Magic last season. I don't think he has started in a single preseason game. Varejao played 16 mpg for the Cavs in the regular season and 18 mpg in the playoffs. Statistically, he got worse from his rookie season. Though from observation, his defense improved.


I'm confused about the "only guys" comment as I also talked about guys like Gasol, Deng, Dirk, Z, Diaw, Barbaso, Yao, Hedo, Okur, AK-47, Radmanovic, Kristic, etc in my initial post.



> You were saying Muresan was not a starting caliber player. We're not talking about their value over a decade. Muresan at his best played similar minutes to Ginobili, had a similar PER and had more defensive impact.


Fair enough I was unclear about my thoughts on Muresan: difficult comparing a decade that isn't finished and I'm also leaning more towards only the last few years of the present decade as well



> Sounds about right. Except, again, I think the '90s lucked out with some all-time greats. As a viewer, there's a lot more value to me in watching superstars. They define the league, really. Still, because of sheer numbers, I'd say this decade will have the edge in terms of foreign talent.


Dirk and Yao wont' go down as all-time greats? Dirk is definitely on his way and I'd be surprised if Yao doesn't finish his career as a top 10 center of all time either



> You said Ostertag was merely an OK shot-blocker. I was simply showing that he was much better than that. But yes, the vast majority of good shot-blockers are in fact good team defenders. Blocked shots are a fraction of the total number of shots that are altered. A guy who blocks a lot of shots alters many more. And Ostertag was a decent post defender. He was slow, but he was strong and he knew what to do. He had 5.1 fouls per 40 minutes. Olajuwon is the best defender I've seen. He had over 4 per 40 minutes in some seasons. Mutombo had 4. Ewing, Zo, Buck Williams, Oakley and Mason all had 4-5 during their best defensive years. Kemp had 5-6. It's a sign of aggressiveness. If you're a good defender, that’s usually a good thing. If you're Stromile Swift, it's not. Ostertag was more Mutombo than Swift.


Ostertag got fouls because he was slow and I don't think recalling Kemp was anything more then an ok defender either. I still think you're overrating his defensive impact even as showing that other very aggresive defenders still averaged less fouls then him



> Nearly every team has a weakness. OK, maybe the '87 Lakers didn't. I don't see the Jazz as having a major weakness, either. But the '86 Celtics had a weak backcourt. The Sonics had no big-time scorer. The Bulls, Blazers and Suns were all weak at C. The current Spurs and Mavs are also weak there. The '97 Rockets at PG. The threepeat Lakers had little outside of Shaq and Kobe.
> I don't think a team needs to be good at all positions in order to be considered great. A weak position is OK. The rest of the team just has to be overwhelmingly strong. The early '90s Lakers had an excellent frontcourt and they had Magic Johnson. In ’92, Magic was replaced by Threatt, and Worthy, Perkins and Divac missed a combined 93 games, yet they still made the playoffs. Paulo thinks it was sheer emotion or Magic’s ghost or something magical like that. I say they were simply a great team, which meant that they could win despite those massive setbacks.


Well when is a weakness an Achilles heel? That 90 team lost in the semifinals when KJ just tore them apart. I don't have the box scores available but I recall Magic was scoring 40 ppg that series but they got no help from the rest of the backcourt and had no defender to throw at Kevin Johnson. It's wasn't close either they lost 4-1 that year to Phoenix. Sure they had a great frontcourt and all time great PG but that was more then just a weak spot



> If there are three extra teams now, then isn’t the overall effect nil? I mean, there were 23 teams in ’88. The talent from 23 then had to be spread over 27 teams in the ‘90s. That’s dilution. Now there are 30 teams. Further dilution. But there is perhaps enough foreign talent to fill the three extra teams. So we’re back to where we were in the ‘90s.
> 
> 
> I don’t get this either. Previously, a lot of guys who would have made the NBA played in the ABA instead. After the merger, all American talent went to the NBA. Just as it did in every other era. So I don’t see how that means the ‘80s had superior talent. The merger just reversed the dilutive effect of the ABA.


My line of thought there is also a natural growth in the player population as the general populace increase: there's what close to a hundred million more people in the US then before so expansion doesnt' necessarily dilutional over time. But when it does occur i.e. the season right after expansion it drastic change and not a change like adding a single team ever 5 years. In 90 it was 4 teams added over just two years



> Duncan averaged 18/9 against the Kings, while being guarded by Shareef Abdur-Rahim (no defense), Ron Artest (SF) and Brad Miller (no defense). He might have been healthier in the playoffs (or, more likely, he was saving himself for them), but he just wasn’t the Duncan we are used to. He’d have fared much worse against the Jazz, who had very good post defense and interior defense.
> Ginobili played no better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Hornacek’s defense was better. And you know playmaking ability isn’t fully reflected in PER. It only counts assists. As with blocked shots, for every assist, there are several good passes that aren’t shown in the numbers. Stockton was easily better than Ginobili. He played more minutes too, both in the regular season and in the playoffs.
> Hornacek was on Jordan for most of the ’97 Finals. He did a pretty good job. The Jazz had another good defender in Bryon Russell. They had a good defender at every single position. And their backcourt did a good job against the Lakers with Kobe and NVE in ’98. In ’96, the Jazz took the Sonics to seven games. The Sonics were athletic, and they were a great team. The Jazz were considerably worse in ’96 -- won nine fewer games, Malone’s PER was 26 rather than 29, and Ostertag and Russell weren’t yet good players. The ’97 Jazz would have been a match for that Seattle side.
> Mohammed is a poor defender. Malone would have destroyed him. And Horry showed last season that he has nothing left.


The Sonics weren't that athletic in the backcourt though. Payton wasn't you're typical slash and kick PG who killed with his footspeed and Hawkins was there SG who if anything was slower then Hornacek. In 98, the Lakers team had some sever mental issues (i.e. NVE wasn't even starting although he played more then Fisher) and Kobe also was in only second year. It wasn't till his third that he took the leap. They would have a ton of trouble with Ginobili and Parker who both are quicker arguably then any other guard they faced in the 97 playoffs. Together I simply don't see compelling evidence that Ginobili and Parker would not have a tough time penetrating and causing foul trouble. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one



> They weren’t injured for the playoffs, and that’s what matters. These guys gear themselves that way, even if it means sacrificing a great regular season record.
> Kevin Willis and Eddie Johnson came off the bench. Matt Maloney started at PG. That was their weak position. He was a good defender, but that’s about it.


That's a really bad PG spot lol. Again seems more like Achille's heel then just simply a weak spot plus Eddie Johnson was like 37 then. Uggh old team


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=312179


----------



## djtoneblaze (Nov 22, 2004)

It basically is just nostalgia. The way you look at the '90s, there are kids that are going to look at this decade and the next decade, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> I'm confused about the "only guys" comment as I also talked about guys like Gasol, Deng, Dirk, Z, Diaw, Barbaso, Yao, Hedo, Okur, AK-47, Radmanovic, Kristic, etc in my initial post.


It gets confusing because there are so many points. In this case I was addressing your point about Varejao, Barbosa, Darko, etc. I think. :redface:



> Dirk and Yao wont' go down as all-time greats? Dirk is definitely on his way and I'd be surprised if Yao doesn't finish his career as a top 10 center of all time either


Ah, I forgot about those two. They'll end up all-time greats, sure. But IMO Olajuwon is a GOAT candidate, Ewing is top 6-8 in the past 20 years, and Mutombo is probably a top-4 defender of all time.



> Ostertag got fouls because he was slow and I don't think recalling Kemp was anything more then an ok defender either. I still think you're overrating his defensive impact even as showing that other very aggresive defenders still averaged less fouls then him


Kemp was a very good defender. Ostertag also picked up a lot of fouls by challenging everything in the paint. I'm not saying he was as good a defender as the guys I mentioned. But I think his defense and rebounding were valuable enough to offset his offensive shortcomings, making him an average starter.



> Well when is a weakness an Achilles heel? That 90 team lost in the semifinals when KJ just tore them apart. I don't have the box scores available but I recall Magic was scoring 40 ppg that series but they got no help from the rest of the backcourt and had no defender to throw at Kevin Johnson. It's wasn't close either they lost 4-1 that year to Phoenix. Sure they had a great frontcourt and all time great PG but that was more then just a weak spot


A weakness isn't a weakness if it can't be exploited. The early '90s Blazers were a great side, but they lost to the Pistons in the Finals for the same reason. Isiah averaged 28 ppg against them. Porter was simply a poor defender. The Lakers lost to the Pistons the previous year, but Magic was injured. They did beat them in ’88. The Pistons had a weakness too. They didn’t really have anyone to put on big fast guards like Magic and Drexler. 
Great teams can lose to inferior opponents because of matchup problems. I was serious when I said that I think the '93 Rockets would have beaten the Bulls if they'd met in the Finals. The Bulls were fantastic, but they couldn't guard Olajuwon, Maxwell knew how to guard Jordan, Horry was athletic enough to keep up with Pippen, and Horace Grant seemed to struggle against big, strong power forwards like Otis Thorpe. Similarly, the '97 Rockets had Olajuwon having his last great year, Barkley playing away from the basket enough to draw Rodman away from the boards, and Drexler and Mario Elie who were suited to guarding Pippen and Jordan respectively. Both Bulls sides were better teams, but they would have had a tough time because of matchup problems.
The '95 Suns with a hobbling Barkley very nearly beat the Rockets because Kenny Smith and Cassell were horrible defenders. KJ killed them. He put up 47/10 in Game 7 in '95. And Barkley, although injured, was able to do damage because the Rockets only had Chucky Brown and Pete Chilcutt with whom to guard him.
The 2000 Blazers, too. They just matched up well with the Lakers.



> My line of thought there is also a natural growth in the player population as the general populace increase: there's what close to a hundred million more people in the US then before so expansion doesnt' necessarily dilutional over time. But when it does occur i.e. the season right after expansion it drastic change and not a change like adding a single team ever 5 years. In 90 it was 4 teams added over just two years


Good point. However, I don’t think the population increase since 1990 is nearly 100 million. The population is 300 million now, and it was 200 million in the ‘60s. But I get your point (about expansion, not about the merger). Though I still don’t notice any difference in the quality of play. Perhaps because I’ve always tended to watch the good teams, and the top teams in the ‘90s were great.



> The Sonics weren't that athletic in the backcourt though. Payton wasn't you're typical slash and kick PG who killed with his footspeed and Hawkins was there SG who if anything was slower then Hornacek.


True, but they were a running team. Third in pace factor, and they beat everyone with their speed. So I don’t think the Jazz struggled particularly against athletic teams. Also, Payton was strong, and a criticism of Stockton was that he could be bullied by stronger opponents. Yet the Jazz won. They were a really good defensive unit, and I just don’t think they would be troubled much by the Spurs’ (or the Mavs’) quickness. I don’t think Stockton suffered against quick opponents. 



> In 98, the Lakers team had some sever mental issues (i.e. NVE wasn't even starting although he played more then Fisher) and Kobe also was in only second year. It wasn't till his third that he took the leap. They would have a ton of trouble with Ginobili and Parker who both are quicker arguably then any other guard they faced in the 97 playoffs. Together I simply don't see compelling evidence that Ginobili and Parker would not have a tough time penetrating and causing foul trouble. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one


They had issues, but I’m going to attribute NVE’s 9 ppg on 23% from the field on the Jazz defense. And Stockton was already declining defensively. He was better in ’97. 
Kobe had a PER of 19 in ’98 and he was playing 26 mpg, averaging 15 ppg on 43%. He played 22 mpg against the Jazz, averaging 10 ppg on 37% shooting. Van Exel and Kobe were both quick.
Jordan was quick too. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.



> That's a really bad PG spot lol. Again seems more like Achille's heel then just simply a weak spot plus Eddie Johnson was like 37 then. Uggh old team


They beat the Sonics. Maloney’s defense on Payton was very valuable. Eddie Johnson was asked to do no more than spot up for threes (I don’t think anyone expected him to play defense).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Ah, I forgot about those two. They'll end up all-time greats, sure. But IMO Olajuwon is a GOAT candidate, Ewing is top 6-8 in the past 20 years, and Mutombo is probably a top-4 defender of all time.


Hakeem can make a case but he wouldn't win although I _really _don't want to get into that with you again. Hakeem is definitely a top 5 candidate over the last 25 which I seriously doubt Yao or Dirk will be considered. I am still not buying Ewing should be included but Duncan shouldn't (there are no posters from the Carribean to help us out with this?). In any case, I don't rate Ewing nearly as high as you do (Hakeem, Jordan, Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Moses - there's ten right there and I could add a few more). IMO both Yao and Dirk have excellent chances to finish ahead of Ewing on the list.



> Kemp was a very good defender. Ostertag also picked up a lot of fouls by challenging everything in the paint. I'm not saying he was as good a defender as the guys I mentioned. But I think his defense and rebounding were valuable enough to offset his offensive shortcomings, making him an average starter.


Again I don't remember Kemp being a great defender outside of using his athleticism occasionally for a ridiculous block. My final comment on Ostertag is that the numbers Sloan played him just doesn't coincide with him being average: he played less then half the game in his statiscally best season. This was at age 23 when stamna should have been less of an issue and he played more in other seasons. I usually hate +/- as a stat but it would be interesting to see Utah's +/- and opponent teams +/- with Ostertag in there.



> A weakness isn't a weakness if it can't be exploited. The early '90s Blazers were a great side, but they lost to the Pistons in the Finals for the same reason. Isiah averaged 28 ppg against them. Porter was simply a poor defender. The Lakers lost to the Pistons the previous year, but Magic was injured. They did beat them in ’88. The Pistons had a weakness too. They didn’t really have anyone to put on big fast guards like Magic and Drexler.
> Great teams can lose to inferior opponents because of matchup problems. I was serious when I said that I think the '93 Rockets would have beaten the Bulls if they'd met in the Finals. The Bulls were fantastic, but they couldn't guard Olajuwon, Maxwell knew how to guard Jordan, Horry was athletic enough to keep up with Pippen, and Horace Grant seemed to struggle against big, strong power forwards like Otis Thorpe. Similarly, the '97 Rockets had Olajuwon having his last great year, Barkley playing away from the basket enough to draw Rodman away from the boards, and Drexler and Mario Elie who were suited to guarding Pippen and Jordan respectively. Both Bulls sides were better teams, but they would have had a tough time because of matchup problems.
> The '95 Suns with a hobbling Barkley very nearly beat the Rockets because Kenny Smith and Cassell were horrible defenders. KJ killed them. He put up 47/10 in Game 7 in '95. And Barkley, although injured, was able to do damage because the Rockets only had Chucky Brown and Pete Chilcutt with whom to guard him.
> The 2000 Blazers, too. They just matched up well with the Lakers.


I agree that there always will be a team someone doesn't match up with but some weaknesses just will be exploited more frequently then others. For example there are just a ton of explosive PG's in the NBA that Laker team would just have a hell of time going against: both Phoenix and Dallas would just make live hell for that Laker backcourt. So while every team will have a weakness, I feel to qualify for a great team again should be one where the vast majority of time that team should be at the minimum expected to get to the Finals. That Laker team would just have trouble though against any team with a quick PG. 

Looking at more closely I think part of the problem was that Divac was just a rookie in 90 so that overpowering frontcourt wasn't as strong as there PER's would indicate. Divac played 20 mpg during the regular season and under 20 in the playoffs. Next year they had the benefit of Divac being in his second year.



> Good point. However, I don’t think the population increase since 1990 is nearly 100 million. The population is 300 million now, and it was 200 million in the ‘60s. But I get your point (about expansion, not about the merger). Though I still don’t notice any difference in the quality of play. Perhaps because I’ve always tended to watch the good teams, and the top teams in the ‘90s were great.


Oops forgot to add that since _1970 _the population has increased by a 100 million plus the popularity of basketball on the whole has increased




> True, but they were a running team. Third in pace factor, and they beat everyone with their speed. So I don’t think the Jazz struggled particularly against athletic teams. Also, Payton was strong, and a criticism of Stockton was that he could be bullied by stronger opponents. Yet the Jazz won. They were a really good defensive unit, and I just don’t think they would be troubled much by the Spurs’ (or the Mavs’) quickness. I don’t think Stockton suffered against quick opponents.
> 
> They had issues, but I’m going to attribute NVE’s 9 ppg on 23% from the field on the Jazz defense. And Stockton was already declining defensively. He was better in ’97.
> Kobe had a PER of 19 in ’98 and he was playing 26 mpg, averaging 15 ppg on 43%. He played 22 mpg against the Jazz, averaging 10 ppg on 37% shooting. Van Exel and Kobe were both quick.
> Jordan was quick too. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Hard for me to make a firm statistical evidence for 97 Stockton as it seems like the quick PG's who were good seemed to be in the East (Brandon, Stoudamire, Hardaway) but I always felt quick PG's like Isiah. From 97, Brandon scored 33 on 11 of 21 shooting: the next game CLE/Utah I think Brandon was hurt as he only played 24 minutes. Hardaway doubled up Stockton in scoring but was inefficient. Stoudamire scored 27 vs Stockton's 8 but the next matchup Damon only scored 14 and Stockton outplayed him. Probably too small of a sample to make a definitive statement





> They beat the Sonics. Maloney’s defense on Payton was very valuable. Eddie Johnson was asked to do no more than spot up for threes (I don’t think anyone expected him to play defense).


Again the Laker team statement applies to this team: too many holes despite there obvious strengths and too much dependence on aged players. Complete crap shoot with odds against them if they would be healthy, no real bench to cover them when the injuries hit and even if they did manage to healthy till the playoffs they were almost guaranteed to in trouble against teams with strong backcourts


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

Wow..... I can never last this long in a debate like this.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> I am still not buying Ewing should be included but Duncan shouldn't (there are no posters from the Carribean to help us out with this?).


duncan2k5? :angel: 



> In any case, I don't rate Ewing nearly as high as you do (Hakeem, Jordan, Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Moses - there's ten right there and I could add a few more). IMO both Yao and Dirk have excellent chances to finish ahead of Ewing on the list.


Yao, maybe. I don't think Dirk will improve any more. IMO, it's Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Duncan, Barkley, Garnett, Drexler, Pippen, Kobe, McGrady... With Bird and Magic equal, and Ewing, Malone and Duncan equal. Prime value.



> I agree that there always will be a team someone doesn't match up with but some weaknesses just will be exploited more frequently then others. For example there are just a ton of explosive PG's in the NBA that Laker team would just have a hell of time going against: both Phoenix and Dallas would just make live hell for that Laker backcourt. So while every team will have a weakness, I feel to qualify for a great team again should be one where the vast majority of time that team should be at the minimum expected to get to the Finals. That Laker team would just have trouble though against any team with a quick PG.


The Bulls were the best team in the golden era of centers. 



> Looking at more closely I think part of the problem was that Divac was just a rookie in 90 so that overpowering frontcourt wasn't as strong as there PER's would indicate. Divac played 20 mpg during the regular season and under 20 in the playoffs. Next year they had the benefit of Divac being in his second year.


In 1990 they did have Orlando Woolridge, who played 23 mpg and had a PER of 18. Though he wasn't a good defender.



> Hard for me to make a firm statistical evidence for 97 Stockton as it seems like the quick PG's who were good seemed to be in the East (Brandon, Stoudamire, Hardaway)...


Young Strickland and Cassell were also quick and liked to penetrate. Strickland scored a lot in one game and scored little in the other (incidentally, one of these games seems to have featured a Muresan-Ostertag battle. I'd love to have seen that). Same thing with Cassell.



> Again the Laker team statement applies to this team: too many holes despite there obvious strengths and too much dependence on aged players. Complete crap shoot with odds against them if they would be healthy, no real bench to cover them when the injuries hit and even if they did manage to healthy till the playoffs they were almost guaranteed to in trouble against teams with strong backcourts


For the '04 Lakers, Payton was ageing before our eyes and Malone got injured during the playoffs. The Rockets were different. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler, although banged up, were healthy for the playoffs. That's a fact. They sat out games in the regular season in order to recuperate and be able to play through 20+ playoff games. I don't understand this whole "replay the season a hundred times" thing. You can only look at what happened. Payton and Malone crumbled for the Lakers. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler were fine.
When injuries did occur to Olajuwon and Barkley (Olajuwon missed 4 games, Barkley 29), Kevin Willis was there to back up. A solid player on both ends of the floor, who could play both positions.
And that team certainly wasn't guaranteed to have trouble with strong backcourts. Again, although Maloney was almost useless on offense, he was a pretty decent defender. Mario Elie was a good defender too.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Yao, maybe. I don't think Dirk will improve any more. IMO, it's Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Duncan, Barkley, Garnett, Drexler, Pippen, Kobe, McGrady... With Bird and Magic equal, and Ewing, Malone and Duncan equal. Prime value.


Even if Dirk doesn't improve he's only 27 with two straight PERs seasons well above 25. That will be hard to ignore. Duncan is well ahaed of Ewing and they are not equal and so is Moses. Both had much larger impacts on offense for a greater period of time and at least Duncan has at least the same defensive impact. Moses defense in his prime is getting hazy for me but I do recall think ing he was a good defender as well although not a great shotblocker. His rebounding was more dominant then Ewing however




> The Bulls were the best team in the golden era of centers.


 Yep



> In 1990 they did have Orlando Woolridge, who played 23 mpg and had a PER of 18. Though he wasn't a good defender.


The problem is they played Mychal Thompson more then Divac who was well on the decline and Green was just a defender/rebounder. The only frontcourt scoring thus came from Worthy and Woolridge - who both were SF's. The 91 team was better although they had a worse record, Perkins and Divac + Worthy (minus Woolridge) made for a more balanced frontcourt



> Young Strickland and Cassell were also quick and liked to penetrate. Strickland scored a lot in one game and scored little in the other (incidentally, one of these games seems to have featured a *Muresan-Ostertag battle. I'd love to have seen that*). Same thing with Cassell.


ROFL: one for the ages



> For the '04 Lakers, Payton was ageing before our eyes and Malone got injured during the playoffs. The Rockets were different. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler, although banged up, were healthy for the playoffs. That's a fact. They sat out games in the regular season in order to recuperate and be able to play through 20+ playoff games. I don't understand this whole "replay the season a hundred times" thing. You can only look at what happened. Payton and Malone crumbled for the Lakers. Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler were fine.
> When injuries did occur to Olajuwon and Barkley (Olajuwon missed 4 games, Barkley 29), Kevin Willis was there to back up. A solid player on both ends of the floor, who could play both positions.
> And that team certainly wasn't guaranteed to have trouble with strong backcourts. Again, although Maloney was almost useless on offense, he was a pretty decent defender. Mario Elie was a good defender too.


The point about replaying is this: the Lakers got unlucky with Malone getting hurt in the playoffs rather then the other way around with Houston. Any of the big three (+ Eddie Johnson) for Houston could easily have been hurt in the playoffs. Also homecourt makes a difference in the playoffs - it's big factor and taking the season off costs you. I liked Elie but that's simply a huge hole at the PG spot


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Even if Dirk doesn't improve he's only 27 with two straight PERs seasons well above 25. That will be hard to ignore. Duncan is well ahaed of Ewing and they are not equal and so is Moses. Both had much larger impacts on offense for a greater period of time and at least Duncan has at least the same defensive impact. Moses defense in his prime is getting hazy for me but I do recall think ing he was a good defender as well although not a great shotblocker. His rebounding was more dominant then Ewing however


As I was saying a while back, linear adjustment for pace hurts some players. Ewing is one of them. If you consider what those extra possessions actually were, you realise that few of them were in a halfcourt setting with a big man getting to post up. Many transition baskets. It's also more taxing physically to play in a faster-paced system. 
Another reason why I think PER hurts Ewing is that he mostly had poor teammates offensively. It's easier to score and do it efficiently when you have penetrators like Ginobili and Parker or a bunch of shooters and David Robinson floating about (or both). Duncan has never had to play with a supporting cast like Starks-Smith-Mason-Rivers-Oakley. That's why I think Ewing was able to maintain a prime-level PER at the age of 35 -- Houston, L. Johnson and Charlie Ward were able to at least give him some room. Also why he was able to post a PER of 26 one year -- that was the season in which he actually had a good point guard and some teammates who could score.
Duncan is the better man defender, Ewing the better team defender. Statistically, Duncan is the better rebounder. But Ewing did put up a rebound rate of 18 playing with Mason-Oakley-Smith. I think his earlier rebounding numbers were a bit lower because they were crashing the offensive boards as per coach's orders.
Duncan is the better passer. But I think they're equal offensively, overall. Ewing proved he could succeed in both run-and-gun and grind-it-out systems. And despite his tendency to take a lot of jump shots, he always somehow drew a ton of defensive attention, just like Duncan.

I'm not counting Moses because I'm talking about the past 20 years. And I never saw Moses in his prime.



> The point about replaying is this: the Lakers got unlucky with Malone getting hurt in the playoffs rather then the other way around with Houston. Any of the big three (+ Eddie Johnson) for Houston could easily have been hurt in the playoffs.


Olajuwon and Drexler were 35 in '97 and Barkley was 34. You don't expect these guys to get injured in the playoffs. Every year, they gear themselves to be in top form just as the postseason begins. An injury to them in the playoffs would be a freak occurrance. We don't consider the '89 Lakers a worse side because Worthy and Scott got injured in the Finals.
Karl Malone was 41. An injury to him is a lot less surprising. And he did miss half the regular season.

As for the hole at PG -- I don't think it was that big a problem. Maloney didn't need to do anything with the big three commanding the ball all the time. He just had to play defense. I looked on findarticles.com for some mention of him that year. I found this. It says he guarded Hawkins, but I seem to remember him guarding Payton most of the time. Still, it suggests he wasn't worthless.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> As I was saying a while back, linear adjustment for pace hurts some players. Ewing is one of them. If you consider what those extra possessions actually were, you realise that few of them were in a halfcourt setting with a big man getting to post up. Many transition baskets. It's also more taxing physically to play in a faster-paced system.
> Another reason why I think PER hurts Ewing is that he mostly had poor teammates offensively. It's easier to score and do it efficiently when you have penetrators like Ginobili and Parker or a bunch of shooters and David Robinson floating about (or both). Duncan has never had to play with a supporting cast like Starks-Smith-Mason-Rivers-Oakley. That's why I think Ewing was able to maintain a prime-level PER at the age of 35 -- Houston, L. Johnson and Charlie Ward were able to at least give him some room. Also why he was able to post a PER of 26 one year -- that was the season in which he actually had a good point guard and some teammates who could score.
> Duncan is the better man defender, Ewing the better team defender. Statistically, Duncan is the better rebounder. But Ewing did put up a rebound rate of 18 playing with Mason-Oakley-Smith. I think his earlier rebounding numbers were a bit lower because they were crashing the offensive boards as per coach's orders.
> Duncan is the better passer. But I think they're equal offensively, overall. Ewing proved he could succeed in both run-and-gun and grind-it-out systems. And despite his tendency to take a lot of jump shots, he always somehow drew a ton of defensive attention, just like Duncan.
> ...


But we're comparing two post players essentially: I'm not sure why a different non-linear change in the impact of pace would be very signficant in terms of adjusment numbers here. In fact, I'm really confused with this:

Ewings highest stretch of PER occurred when he was relatively young - his best two seasons occurred at age 27 and 28 (relatively early compared to Hakeem, D-rob, and Shaq). This was also when the Knicks payed a lot faster then they did later in his career (106 ppg age 27 vs 98.5 at age 31 when his PER went down and stayed down). Seems like the fast pace definitely helped his TS%. From basketball-reference, Ewing's highest PER at age 27 was 25.8 and at age 35 it was 23.3 not 26. In addition, Ewing did have Mark Jackson early in his career for the PG spot. I don't think he was Robinson was gifted with a lot of talent either around him for a lot fo his career and he put up much higher PER numbers then Ewing.

On the whole, it's just very difficult to make it out that Ewing = Duncan offensively. I just don't see it. Duncan is a better post scorer who IMO is far more reliable then Ewing ever was (Ewing was a bit more efficient in his early years which came from the fast break but pretty significant and consistent difference in turnover rate in Duncan's favor). The stats seem to back it up: consistently better rebounder and consistently better passer.



> Olajuwon and Drexler were 35 in '97 and Barkley was 34. You don't expect these guys to get injured in the playoffs. Every year, they gear themselves to be in top form just as the postseason begins. An injury to them in the playoffs would be a freak occurrance. We don't consider the '89 Lakers a worse side because Worthy and Scott got injured in the Finals.
> Karl Malone was 41. An injury to him is a lot less surprising. And he did miss half the regular season.


Barkely in terms of physical conditioing was WAY behind Malone even though Malone was 41. I don't the 89 Laker side any worse because again replay that year 9 out of 10 times they wouldn't both be hurt.



> As for the hole at PG -- I don't think it was that big a problem. Maloney didn't need to do anything with the big three commanding the ball all the time. He just had to play defense. I looked on findarticles.com for some mention of him that year. I found this. It says he guarded Hawkins, but I seem to remember him guarding Payton most of the time. Still, it suggests he wasn't worthless.



In addition to the PG and they only have a two deep bench: not much there behind the big three plus a big hole at PG. I don't remember much about Maloney but he sounds like Eric Snow and no team with an Eric Snow (Cavalier version) type of PG I will consider great. Too easy to sag off him .


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The amount of Bull**** in this thread both for and against the 90's is staggering. Its actually prompted me to put a couple people (one of whom used to frequent the bulls forum) on ignore for sheer stupidity.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> But we're comparing two post players essentially: I'm not sure why a different non-linear change in the impact of pace would be very signficant in terms of adjusment numbers here.


It is the fact that they are both post players that makes comparisons using linear adjustment for pace unfair. A 10% increase in the number of possessions is not going to result in a 10% increase in production for a post player. The extra possessions aren't simply tacked on to the end of games. Most of them are not situations that favor post players to score.



> Ewings highest stretch of PER occurred when he was relatively young - his best two seasons occurred at age 27 and 28 (relatively early compared to Hakeem, D-rob, and Shaq). This was also when the Knicks payed a lot faster then they did later in his career (106 ppg age 27 vs 98.5 at age 31 when his PER went down and stayed down). Seems like the fast pace definitely helped his TS%.


His best two PER years, ’90 and ’91, also happened to be the seasons in which he had passable teammates on the offensive end, particularly shooters. He had decent offensive teammates in '89, too, but the Knicks were under Pitino with his stupid running offense, having 104.4 possessions per game. And it’s 26-year olds who average the highest PER in the league. It may be a couple of years later for centers. Ewing had his at 27. Shaq at 27 (equal-highest PER, highest mpg). Robinson at 28. Parish at 27. Duncan at 25 (equal-highest PER, highest mpg). Kareem at 24. Wilt at 25. Daugherty at 26. Zo at 29.
Also, it simply does not make sense that the benefit of increased pace to Ewing would be linear or _more_ than linear. Just think about all those extra possessions. Was it Ewing finishing in transition? No, Ewing got the majority of his baskets when sticking his butt out and posting up. 



> From basketball-reference, Ewing's highest PER at age 27 was 25.8 and at age 35 it was 23.3 not 26.


I said “prime-level”. His PER at age 35 was the third-best of his career. His PER during most of his prime was 23.



> I don't think he was Robinson was gifted with a lot of talent either around him for a lot fo his career and he put up much higher PER numbers then Ewing.


I don’t think he was on the level of Robinson, either. 
But Robinson’s style of play was a double-edged sword. It did mean that he relied less on his teammates. He could get the ball well outside the paint and face up. But it also meant that he never drew double teams like Shaq, Ewing and Olajuwon did.
Another thing about Robinson is that his PER probably doesn't suffer at all from linear adjustment, since he so often finished the break.



> Duncan is a better post scorer who IMO is far more reliable then Ewing ever was (Ewing was a bit more efficient in his early years which came from the fast break but pretty significant and consistent difference in turnover rate in Duncan's favor). The stats seem to back it up: consistently better rebounder and consistently better passer.


Duncan is the better post scorer, but Ewing had the better jump shot. That sort of versatility is useful. He could draw guys like Eaton, Mutombo and Shaq out, or take smaller opponents inside. Only Robinson, Barkley and Karl Malone were sufficiently reliable both inside and 20 feet out to be able to do that whenever they wanted.
As for rebounding, I think linear adjustment disadvantages Ewing here too. When the Knicks started to slow down, his rebound rate increased. He had RbRs of 17-18 playing alongside Oakley, Mason and Smith, who were all good-to-great rebounders. And, in the late ‘90s, when the Knicks got even slower, Ewing’s rebound rate actually increased even though he was in his mid-30s. I see this as a result of the slower pace and Oakley missing a lot of games and Mason being traded.



> Barkely in terms of physical conditioing was WAY behind Malone even though Malone was 41.


It’s a myth that Barkley wasn’t in great shape for much of his career. He was fat, but he was as fit as anyone. He played 38 mpg in ’97 despite the fact that he had a good backup. You don’t play those kind of minutes in the regular season if you’re not in phenomenal shape. Malone was seven years older. He played 33 mpg in 42 regular season games. Increasing that to 38 mpg in the playoffs probably took a toll.



> In addition to the PG and they only have a two deep bench: not much there behind the big three plus a big hole at PG. I don't remember much about Maloney but he sounds like Eric Snow and no team with an Eric Snow (Cavalier version) type of PG I will consider great. Too easy to sag off him .


Eric Snow’s PER is 8. Maloney’s was 12 and he was a 40% three-point shooter who played good defense.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> The amount of Bull**** in this thread both for and against the 90's is staggering. Its actually prompted me to put a couple people (one of whom used to frequent the bulls forum) on ignore for sheer stupidity.


What's really staggering is they can go into 2-3 pages of argument and debating.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

duncan is better than patrick (both from teh caribbean...if i remember correctly, pat is from jamaica). you cant say that the reason duncan scores efficiently is because he has outside threats...for one, tony parker isn't exactly steve nash...neither was avery johnson. ppl sag off them ALL the time. back when SA was a very bad offensive team with the cecond option being a hurt david robinson, duncan was still doing his thing. matter of fact, he was doing it better. just accept the fact that his greatness is from within...not because of his teammates. 

i dont get why ppl always say duncan is only that good of a corer because of his teammates, but they never said that for shaq when he was in LA. with shaq, it was "he makes things easier for perimeter players", but with duncan, its the other way around...i dont get it.

duncan is a top 10 player in NBA history, and the best PF ever. dont glamorize malone's greatness, duncan accomplished a LOT more, in less time...look it up for the young gunz


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ Parker doesn't have to be an outside threat. He is a penetrator. He draws attention. Unlike Doc Rivers.

And I say the same thing about Shaq. Penny, Kobe and Wade helped him.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

duncan2k5 said:


> *duncan is a top 10 player in NBA history, and the best PF ever. dont glamorize malone's greatness, duncan accomplished a LOT more, in less time...look it up for the young gunz*


No. He isn't.

Jordan
Wilt
Bill Russell
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Oscar Robertson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Jerry West
Shaq

That's just a few. Who on that list are you going to take off to make room for Duncan???? There are others who are better than Duncan as well......

And as much as I dislike Malone, don't get it twisted. If he played in Jordan's prime, he wouldn't have accomplished **** either. He'd be another also-ran, who got killed in the wake of Jordan's greatness, just like Malone.

Have some perspective. Or at the very least, some common sense.


----------



## chocolove (Apr 4, 2006)

Parity, we've had a couple a different championship series combinations in the last few years. So having epic rivalries have been difficult. Maybe for the next 7-8 years though the epic matchup will be Lebron and Wade in the ECF


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> It is the fact that they are both post players that makes comparisons using linear adjustment for pace unfair. A 10% increase in the number of possessions is not going to result in a 10% increase in production for a post player. The extra possessions aren't simply tacked on to the end of games. Most of them are not situations that favor post players to score.
> 
> 
> His best two PER years, ’90 and ’91, also happened to be the seasons in which he had passable teammates on the offensive end, particularly shooters. He had decent offensive teammates in '89, too, but the Knicks were under Pitino with his stupid running offense, having 104.4 possessions per game. And it’s 26-year olds who average the highest PER in the league. It may be a couple of years later for centers. Ewing had his at 27. Shaq at 27 (equal-highest PER, highest mpg). Robinson at 28. Parish at 27. Duncan at 25 (equal-highest PER, highest mpg). Kareem at 24. Wilt at 25. Daugherty at 26. Zo at 29.
> ...



Blah I had a long post lost into the ether of net .

Anyways Barkley was fat and certanly lost a lot of the speed he once had which makes me think his shape wasn't great. With regards to Snow I believe he's a better defender then Maloney and that PER is still pretty pathetic.

With regards to PER when you actually look at career spans and not just best year they were at a different period then Ewing. Shaq age 27-31, Hakeem 30-32, D. Rob 28-32 (His best PER was slightly higher at 32 I think as well). Mourning and Daugherty suffered career or close to career ending injuries when they hit 29 which Ewing didn't have. You might want to say it's all teammates but I see little evidence that weaker teammates results in lower PER and Ewing best years came before the Knicks pace went down when other healthy centers were putting up there best years.

Also Duncan played with Robinson who even when he was old was still a good rebounder and put up higher rbr then Ewing did. Plus when Ewing was young for 3 years w/o Oakley he put rbr rates of only 14-15. Maybe it's because of pace but other centers don't seem to have been affected by higher pace (Kareem till he was 31 played on teams with similar pace to Ewing's early Knicks team and rebounded just fine). In addition the "increase" in rbr rate of 18.8 is an oddity in a season Ewing only played 26 games otherwise he was in the lower 17's: Good but not great. My own impression is that Duncan has a significanlty more reliable scorer, more dominant rebounder, and has as much impact on defense as Ewing. Ewing might have a more reliable jumpshot but Duncan has a very good midrange game with his jumpshot and he is far more trustworthy with the ball in his hand (consistently lower over ToR). Even if the refs didn't call a lot of the travels Ewing got away with. Duncan to me is on the same level as Hakeem and ahead of Ewing.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Anyways Barkley was fat and certanly lost a lot of the speed he once had which makes me think his shape wasn't great.


His prime PERs were 26-29. At the age of 34, suddenly playing with two other big scorers and in a role that wasn't suited to his game (not nearly as much in the post, 4 three-point attempts per game), playing 38 mpg, he had a PER of 23. His rebound rate was 20.7, 0.1 off his career high (it was 20.9 the next year, which was a new career high).



> With regards to Snow I believe he's a better defender then Maloney and that PER is still pretty pathetic.


That PER is 50% higher than Snow's. And I think Maloney is a better defender. And all he was asked to do on offense was spot up for threes, which he did very well.



> With regards to PER when you actually look at career spans and not just best year they were at a different period then Ewing.


What's the point in looking at career spans? Looking at the year after which PER decreased makes more sense for the purposes of this discussion.



> You might want to say it's all teammates but I see little evidence that weaker teammates results in lower PER and Ewing best years came before the Knicks pace went down when other healthy centers were putting up there best years.


I think with perimeter players the "weak teammates depress PER" theory is debatable. But not for post players. When you watched Ewing you didn't notice defenders sticking with him more because they didn't respect Anthony Mason's jump shot? Trying to force up shots because teammates aren't capable reduces scoring efficiency and assists and increases turnovers. This is more true for post players because they are at the mercy of doubles and teammates. A perimeter player can always take the ball and can always get some sort of shot off. Doubles are more stifling in the post.
It was so clear from watching Olajuwon. For years, defenses sagged. Then suddenly some shooters were acquired and it looked so different. More space, easier shots, fewer turnovers, more assists -> better PER.



> Also Duncan played with Robinson who even when he was old was still a good rebounder and put up higher rbr then Ewing did.


That's one guy with a RbR of 17 playing 30 mpg. Ewing was with Mason and Oakley, who had rebound rates of 14 and 18 respectively (numbers depressed because each of them was playing with two other top rebounders). They played a combined 58 mpg. 



> Plus when Ewing was young for 3 years w/o Oakley he put rbr rates of only 14-15.


Ewing wasn't very good at anything when he was young. Duncan's RbR was also lower by around 2 points during his first four seasons.



> Maybe it's because of pace but other centers don't seem to have been affected by higher pace (Kareem till he was 31 played on teams with similar pace to Ewing's early Knicks team and rebounded just fine).


Because he was a better rebounder than Ewing.



> In addition the "increase" in rbr rate of 18.8 is an oddity in a season Ewing only played 26 games otherwise he was in the lower 17's: Good but not great.


His RbR increased from the high 16's in his late 20s to the low-to-mid 17's from the ages of 33-38 when Oakley played about 1400 fewer minutes and Mason left and the game slowed down. The vast majority of players have their rebound rates peak in their mid-to-late 20s.



> Even if the refs didn't call a lot of the travels Ewing got away with.


Duncan gets away with many fouls, particularly when rebounding. 



> Duncan to me is on the same level as Hakeem...


Oh my. :raised_ey


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> His prime PERs were 26-29. At the age of 34, suddenly playing with two other big scorers and in a role that wasn't suited to his game (not nearly as much in the post, 4 three-point attempts per game), playing 38 mpg, he had a PER of 23. His rebound rate was 20.7, 0.1 off his career high (it was 20.9 the next year, which was a new career high).


PER doesn't really take into account stamina or health. No doubt Barkley was effective although it was god awful watching him back down defenders for 10 seconds at a time. 



> That PER is 50% higher than Snow's. And I think Maloney is a better defender. And all he was asked to do on offense was spot up for threes, which he did very well.


Snow has trouble against quick PG's but against anyone else he's as solid as it comes. If Maloney was as good a defender you're making him out to be and could shoot well he'd have got a lot more playing time then he did in his career at least as a backup.



> What's the point in looking at career spans? Looking at the year after which PER decreased makes more sense for the purposes of this discussion.


Looking at career spans is the point. You're making a claim that Ewings PER decreased of pace during his young years. Unfortunately, during the time most every other center peaked and performed at a high level, Ewing's offensive impact didn't appear to great and his pace decreased



> I think with perimeter players the "weak teammates depress PER" theory is debatable. But not for post players. When you watched Ewing you didn't notice defenders sticking with him more because they didn't respect Anthony Mason's jump shot? Trying to force up shots because teammates aren't capable reduces scoring efficiency and assists and increases turnovers. This is more true for post players because they are at the mercy of doubles and teammates. A perimeter player can always take the ball and can always get some sort of shot off. Doubles are more stifling in the post.
> It was so clear from watching Olajuwon. For years, defenses sagged. Then suddenly some shooters were acquired and it looked so different. More space, easier shots, fewer turnovers, more assists -> better PER.


This also doesn't make sense to me. Ewing's team did well enough. The Knicks finished first in there division in 92, had a great coach, had two guards who put up good numbers and were good (Starks and Jackson), Ewing was 30 (an age where every other center who was healthy was terrific), pace was reasonably slow and he still had a low PER compared to Duncan. 



> That's one guy with a RbR of 17 playing 30 mpg. Ewing was with Mason and Oakley, who had rebound rates of 14 and 18 respectively (numbers depressed because each of them was playing with two other top rebounders). They played a combined 58 mpg.
> 
> 
> Ewing wasn't very good at anything when he was young. Duncan's RbR was also lower by around 2 points during his first four seasons.
> ...


But Duncan isn't? Kareem didn't exactly play with dominant rebounders beside him. The case for Ewing over Duncan just seems pretty weak. If somehow you still believe Ewing is equal in terms of rebounding which is not a convincing case at all, Duncan still has significant edges in passing and turnovers. Imagine if Ewing actually wasn't allowed to get away with all the travels because he was a knick. Every center/PF gets away with over the backs but Ewings infamous travels are part of basketball lore :wink:


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

4BiddenKnight said:


> What's really staggering is they can go into 2-3 pages of argument and debating.


 Me and Hakeem have an argument every few months that last a few pages at least. It's usually in NBA history so most posters don't encounter it. In terms of why? Well Hakeem has terrific knowledge of the game's history and actually bothers to prove his case with numbers and specific details about a player's game instead of lowballing a discussion into terms of heart, determination, winning attitude and other terms that hold little value. Challenges me to relook at my perception of the NBA and ball players


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Snow has trouble against quick PG's but against anyone else he's as solid as it comes. If Maloney was as good a defender you're making him out to be and could shoot well he'd have got a lot more playing time then he did in his career at least as a backup.


I'd rate Maloney's defense a 6.5/10. Snow's is 6 at best, IMO. Maloney suffered when the three-point line was lengthened in '98. He had been 40% from beyond the arc in '97, but was 36% for the rest of his career. 



> Looking at career spans is the point. You're making a claim that Ewings PER decreased of pace during his young years. Unfortunately, during the time most every other center peaked and performed at a high level, Ewing's offensive impact didn't appear to great and his pace decreased


No, I'm saying Ewing peaked in 1990, at the age of 27. That is roughly the age at which most big men peak. This was followed by a period of decline (which is still generally considered part of a player's prime). You seem to be suggesting that Ewing's PER was at its highest in '90 because of the faster pace. I'm saying that that was his career high because that was his peak and because he had passable teammates on the offensive end. It was his highest PER despite the faster pace. He managed to keep his PER at approximately 23 well after his prime because of the slower pace and because the Knicks acquired some capable scorers. I'm basing this on the observation that post players' production is stifled by offensively-challenged teammates.



> This also doesn't make sense to me. Ewing's team did well enough. The Knicks finished first in there division in 92, had a great coach, had two guards who put up good numbers and were good (Starks and Jackson), Ewing was 30 (an age where every other center who was healthy was terrific), pace was reasonably slow and he still had a low PER compared to Duncan.


The Knicks won a lot of games because they were the greatest defensive team of all time. Good defense in the backcourt (Rivers, Harper, Starks), good defense at SF (McDaniel, Smith, Mason), excellent defense at PF and C (Ewing, Mason, Oakley), and a great coach.
Ewing's PER in '92 was 23. In '93 it was 21, and in '94 it was 23 again. The team was basically the same from '92 to '93, except they lost Mark Jackson, who was a good point guard. In '94, they acquired Derek Harper and Hubert Davis (PERs of 14, good three-point shooters). They were the 11th best offensive team in the league in '92, 20th in '93, and 14th in '94. It seems pretty clear here that Ewing's PER took a dip in '93 because his teammates were worse offensively.
That said, his teammates in '92 and '94 were still very poor offensively compared to the supporting casts of Duncan. I think if his teammates were better, he would have put up better PERs. A slower pace would have also boosted his PER.



> But Duncan isn't? Kareem didn't exactly play with dominant rebounders beside him.


Kareem played on teams that had a similar pace to Ewing's Knicks, yet he still put up rebound rates of 19. 



> Imagine if Ewing actually wasn't allowed to get away with all the travels because he was a knick. Every center/PF gets away with over the backs but Ewings infamous travels are part of basketball lore


Honestly, I'd say Duncan gets away with a lot more fouls than most other top big men have. But if we're going this way, then Shaq doesn't belong anywhere near a GOAT discussion.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Well Hakeem has terrific knowledge of the game's history and actually bothers to prove his case with numbers and specific details about a player's game instead of lowballing a discussion into terms of heart, determination, winning attitude and other terms that hold little value. Challenges me to relook at my perception of the NBA and ball players


Thanks, Pioneer. I value these discussions too, for the same reasons and also for the pleasant tone.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> No. He isn't.
> 
> Jordan
> Wilt
> ...


...


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

duncan is better than hakeem...dont romanticize hakeem's greatness, and lower duncan's own just because he is playing now. look at what they have done in their career...not just the highlights. duncan is also better than malone, and clearly better than patrick. he is definitely top 10 all time. i think ppl pay WAY too much respect for past players, while slighting the present greats


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Duncan is NOT better than Hakeem.

Take a look at the league and take a look at the weakness of the league during Duncan's prime...

Take a look at Hakeem's league and take a look at the strength of the league during Hakeem's prime...

Now, take into account that Hakeem's team mates were solid-to-good role players. Now take a look at Duncan's good-to-very good role players.

Duncan is great, but Hakeem was GREATER.

People always forget that you have to compare not just inviduals, but the league they were in, its status, its weakness/strengths... and then you compare team mates.

As the Ewing discussion before.
I think if you replace prime Duncan with prime Ewing on the Spurs team... I think that team stays the same... or even adds in a little more. Since Ewing was automatic from 15-16 feet.. whilst still a pretty darn good post player. Defense wise, I think its even... Both rely on instincts and smarts rather than atheletic ability. Ewing was a good scorer.. I think better than Duncan. But Duncan is better in the post. PER is a terrific figure to use, but I think as I said, having better team mates, in terms of playing their roles, can help that figure a lot.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

duncan2k5 said:


> duncan is better than hakeem...dont romanticize hakeem's greatness, and lower duncan's own just because he is playing now. look at what they have done in their career...not just the highlights. duncan is also better than malone, and clearly better than patrick. he is definitely top 10 all time. i think ppl pay WAY too much respect for past players, while slighting the present greats


I thon't think you can make a case about Duncan being greater than any of the players TheKrakken mentioned...


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Duncan I would take over Ewing for sure. But I would say Ewing was reasonably close in his prime year 1990. Excellent defense and comparable offense to Duncan. 

Duncan didn't have good teamattes on offense in 2002 and he still put up a 27 PER. Yes he had David Robinson, but he played limited minutes if you compare them to Duncan. Duncan the last two years played 4-5mpg more than Manu, and about the same as Parker. That means they shared the offensive load. Duncan played 11mpg more than Drob (who was second on the team in MPG). In 2001-2003, Duncan pretty much carried the offense to the same degree Hakeem did in 1993-1995. 

Duncan and Hakeem to me are very similiar on the offensive end. Hakeem seem to up his scoring a lot in the playoffs against better competetion. But Duncan also had a heck of a lot of one on one moves he put on Shaq at times as well early in his career. Sometimes he was shaky, but so was his support. Both Duncan and Hakeem stepped up in the playoffs for their respective teams, even when they didn't have much help. 

I would give the edge to Hakeem on defense. And overall I might give Hakeem the edge in prime value because of his defensive versatility. I think Duncan was the more safe defender in terms of fouls, but Hakeem created more havoc in terms of forcing turnovers. But in terms of regular season production for their respective teams I would say they are about dead even prime value. Duncan was the anchor of some excellent defensive teams, so was Hakeem. 

I just never got the sense Ewing was as good as Duncan or Hakeem on offense.

Duncan to me is the modern day Hakeem in terms of how he impacts the game. And I don't think that would change even if you had a prime Zo, Ewing, Drob, Shaq facing him like they did with Hakeem in the 90s. Duncan could easily hold his own with anybody IMO.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Nikos said:


> Duncan I would take over Ewing for sure. But I would say Ewing was reasonably close in his prime year 1990. Excellent defense and comparable offense to Duncan.
> 
> Duncan didn't have good teamattes on offense in 2002 and he still put up a 27 PER. Yes he had David Robinson, but he played limited minutes if you compare them to Duncan. Duncan the last two years played 4-5mpg more than Manu, and about the same as Parker. That means they shared the offensive load. Duncan played 11mpg more than Drob (who was second on the team in MPG). In 2001-2003, Duncan pretty much carried the offense to the same degree Hakeem did in 1993-1995.
> 
> ...


 ^ Since I'm being lazy, Nikos pretty much up sums up my opinion on Duncan well


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Nikos said:


> Duncan didn't have good teamattes on offense in 2002 and he still put up a 27 PER.


It was similar to Olajuwon's supporting cast in '94... except Duncan had David Robinson playing 30 mpg with a PER of 20.

My view is that Olajuwon was slightly better on the offensive end. PER hurt by weaker teammates and faster pace. 
Defensively, I don't think it's close. Olajuwon was the better defender in pretty much every way imaginable. Better man defense, better interior defense, better when forced to switch, better at playing the passing lanes, better when providing help. He led some great defensive teams even though he sometimes had teammates who weren't particularly good defenders. The only thing Duncan has over him defensively is fewer fouls. 
Olajuwon also raised his game more in the playoffs against superior competition.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> It was similar to Olajuwon's supporting cast in '94... except Duncan had David Robinson playing 30 mpg with a PER of 20.
> 
> My view is that Olajuwon was slightly better on the offensive end. PER hurt by weaker teammates and faster pace.
> Defensively, I don't think it's close. Olajuwon was the better defender in pretty much every way imaginable. Better man defense, better interior defense, better when forced to switch, better at playing the passing lanes, better when providing help. He led some great defensive teams even though he sometimes had teammates who weren't particularly good defenders. The only thing Duncan has over him defensively is fewer fouls.
> Olajuwon also raised his game more in the playoffs against superior competition.


Don't you think Duncan's PER was hurt by playing 11mpg more than the second best player on the team, where the rest of the supporting cast was pretty weak offensively? 

Defensively I think Olajuwon was clearly better. But Duncan still is the anchor of some of the best defenses of all time. (2004 and 2005). Offensively I don't see Olajuwon as being clearly better. He may have played better competetion in the playoffs, but he still didn't clearly seperate himself in the regular season. Duncan had several monster games against the Lakers 99,01,02, 03. Not exactly weak competetion considering in 02 his supporting cast was pretty bad (Drob injured). 

Statistically Duncans best playoff were as good as Olajuwon's, but as you said it was against inferior competetion overall. But I would say Hakeem had better support in 1995 than Duncan's ever had in his prime seasons (except maybe 2005). Duncan still had monster games against good teams when he had help and when he didn't. His blemishes include 2004 and maybe 2005 for the most part. Otherwise he has been very good in many playoffs in the past. Can't really say Hakeem was superior statwise. But if you factor Hakeems tough competetion and lack of support in 1993/94 I would say the argument has merit.

By the way you break it down you make it sound like Olajuwon is superior to Duncan by the same margin that Kobe or Lebron is to Paul Pierce. But I don't see it that way simply because Duncan has similiar production/PER and has also been the defensive anchor of some historically great teams, while also being an excellent offensive player. Not to mention Duncan has stepped up statistically in many playoff instances. That deserves some credit IMO.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Nikos said:


> Don't you think Duncan's PER was hurt by playing 11mpg more than the second best player on the team, where the rest of the supporting cast was pretty weak offensively?


Obviously it would have helped Duncan more if Robinson had played 41 mpg. But 30 mpg is still a lot of help. 



> Offensively I don't see Olajuwon as being clearly better. He may have played better competetion in the playoffs, but he still didn't clearly seperate himself in the regular season. Duncan had several monster games against the Lakers 99,01,02, 03. Not exactly weak competetion considering in 02 his supporting cast was pretty bad (Drob injured).


Duncan had several monster games, but he only really had one great series against the Lakers ('03). Robinson was injured in '02, and perhaps that explains Duncan's 42% shooting against the Lakers in the playoffs that year.
Again, I think Olajuwon was only slightly better offensively. It's mostly defense that separates the two, IMO.


----------

