PDA

View Full Version : The effect of expansion on a league



Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 08:35 PM
Expanding a league stretches out the talent.
It waters down the league and players who wouldn't normally be good enough to make it, make the rosters.
Stretching out the talent,watering down the league is not a good thing, it takes at most a decade to recover and for players/prospects to evolves as athletes do over time.
Now the expansion of 88-89 and the 90's watered down the league. Obvious fact how stretching talent or even money can water something down or lead to less.
It took the 00's for those expansions to live up since the players evolved and more foreign players came to the nba.

HeatFan2011
06-09-2011, 08:39 PM
This is very true. When a league expands, especially with multiple franchises, alot of teams arent able to protect some of their best players from going into the expansion draft. Making things less competitive. Right now is the strongest the NBA has ever been.

bholly
06-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Okay, so you've stated the obvious and most recognized effect of expansion...now what's the point you're trying to make with it?

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Okay, so you've stated the obvious and most recognized effect of expansion...now what's the point you're trying to make with it?

Just pretty funny how you say it's obvious, but some posters deny it.

bholly
06-09-2011, 08:49 PM
haha, really? people deny that expansion dilutes the talent pool?

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 08:52 PM
haha, really? people deny that expansion dilutes the talent pool?

Yes, sadly. Thus the reason for this thread.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-09-2011, 08:53 PM
So... whats the point about this.

bholly
06-09-2011, 08:53 PM
where did they say that?

jp611
06-09-2011, 08:56 PM
He's trying to say that the NBA was watered down in the 90's, making the Bulls championships not so great, making the Heat the best defense EVER... and yes, hes serious

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:00 PM
He's trying to say that the NBA was watered down in the 90's, making the Bulls championships not so great, making the Heat the best defense EVER... and yes, hes serious

Actually that isn't what im saying. But The nba in the 90's was watered down because it was the expansion era, common sense. It has nothing to do with the heat, and you still can't refute my claims because they are true.

LakersMaster24
06-09-2011, 09:07 PM
Trolololo.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:08 PM
Trolololo.

So you are denying expansion dilutes talent too? Sad

Ponch
06-09-2011, 09:12 PM
So you are denying expansion dilutes talent too? Sad

It's not the fact that ppl are denying what expansion does to a league. It's the fact that in that other thread you were trying to make it the basis of your argument as to why the great defensive teams of that era are not as good as the Heat this yr. Who cares, the Heat are NOT the best defensive team ever. PERIOD.

LakersMaster24
06-09-2011, 09:13 PM
So you are denying expansion dilutes talent too? Sad

Yes because I dont think that a league with Hakeem, Stockton, Miller, Malone, Robertson is watered down.

KnicksR4Real
06-09-2011, 09:16 PM
and your trying to say/ask?

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:17 PM
It's not the fact that ppl are denying what expansion does to a league. It's the fact that in that other thread you were trying to make it the basis of your argument as to why the great defensive teams of that era are not as good as the Heat this yr. Who cares, the Heat are NOT the best defensive team ever. PERIOD.

No that isn't what i was doing, i made one post responding to the guy who said "oh the bulls defense was so great because they held the jazz to 52 points", and that's how it started about how bad the jazz roster was besides having an old stockton and malone. Dont quote me saying my intentions, when you clearly have no clue as to what are you referencing.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:18 PM
Yes because I dont think that a league with Hakeem, Stockton, Miller, Malone, Robertson is watered down.

Yes, naming 5 players out of 30 teams.

Ponch
06-09-2011, 09:32 PM
Yes, naming 5 players out of 30 teams.

PG- Stockton, Gary payton, Tim hardaway, Kevin johnson, Mark Price

SG- Jordan, Drexler, Reggie Miller, Mitch Richmond, Dumars

SF- Pippen, Grant Hill, Nique, Chris Mullin, Detlef Schrempf

PF- Malone, Barkley, Rodman, Shawn kemp, Horace Grant

C- Hakeem, Shaq, David Robinson, Ewing, Mourning

Those players had votes for the All 90's team.

Far from watered down & I would take that talent over present talent any day of the week. There were many other very good to great players that got left off that list IMO.

llemon
06-09-2011, 09:36 PM
Absolutely yes. League should have stayed at 9 teams.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:38 PM
PG- Stockton, Gary payton, Tim hardaway, Kevin johnson, Mark Price

SG- Jordan, Drexler, Reggie Miller, Mitch Richmond, Dumars


Drexler was really 80's, dumars was 80's. Reggie wasn't a complete player

SF- Pippen, Grant Hill, Nique, Chris Mullin, Detlef Schrempf

schrempf wasn't great. Nique was 80's, his prime. Mullin was great in that watered down era, and im a huge warriors fan but he wouldn't be great today

PF- Malone, Barkley, Rodman, Shawn kemp, Horace Grant

Horace was a very good hard nosed player, but not great. Shawn kemp has great talent and potential, but wasn't a great player.

C- Hakeem, Shaq, David Robinson, Ewing, Mourning

Big men were great

Those players had votes for the All 90's team.

Far from watered down & I would take that talent over present talent any day of the week. There were many other very good to great players that got left off that list IMO.

You still don't get the point. You can name great players, but when you add more teams it waters down the league, it is an indisputable fact. If you dont add like 7 teams from 88-95, the league wouldn't have been watered down. With the international game getting greater, and their great players coming here during the 00's, it has more talent in the league now.

jp611
06-09-2011, 09:40 PM
No that isn't what i was doing, i made one post responding to the guy who said "oh the bulls defense was so great because they held the jazz to 52 points", and that's how it started about how bad the jazz roster was besides having an old stockton and malone. Dont quote me saying my intentions, when you clearly have no clue as to what are you referencing.

And that Bulls team was so young too :rolleyes:

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:42 PM
And that Bulls team was so young too :rolleyes:


Are you stupid enough to want to compare that bulls roster to that jazz roster?

Ponch
06-09-2011, 09:43 PM
You still don't get the point. You can name great players, but when you add more teams it waters down the league, it is an indisputable fact. If you dont add like 7 teams from 88-95, the league wouldn't have been watered down. With the international game getting greater, and their great players coming here during the 00's, it has more talent in the league now.

Yep your 100% right. The ONLY reason those players were any good at all is because the league was watered down during that period.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:45 PM
Yep your 100% right. The ONLY reason those players were any good at all is because the league was watered down during that period.

Yes, because that is exactly what im saying. Cant get anything past you huh?

jp611
06-09-2011, 09:45 PM
Are you stupid enough to want to compare that bulls roster to that jazz roster?

Does your Mom know you're using her computer?

15 minutes until bedtime Mister

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:48 PM
Does your Mom know you're using her computer?

15 minutes until bedtime Mister

So i guess you concede and dont truly have a point at all.

jp611
06-09-2011, 09:49 PM
There's no more points to put out, the NBA wasnt watered down in the 90's the guy just put out a ****ing list for you to read and you obviously won't take facts, so why even try with you? The NBA was at its best in 90's, get real kid

effen5
06-09-2011, 09:51 PM
90s had more talent then this era.....

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:54 PM
There's no more points to put out, the NBA wasnt watered down in the 90's the guy just put out a ****ing list for you to read and you obviously won't take facts, so why even try with you? The NBA was at its best in 90's, get real kid

You aren't saying facts, saying "the 90's was the best" isn't a fact. People would say the 70's and 80's were better, but of course you are so arrogant to put the 90's above all because it's what you grew up on.

Expanding a league does what? dilute the talent

di·lute (dī-lo͞otˈ, dĭ-)
transitive verb diluted di·lut·ed, diluting di·lut·ing, di·lutes

1. To make thinner or less concentrated by adding a liquid such as water.
2. To lessen the force, strength, purity, or brilliance of, especially by admixture.
3. To decrease the value of (shares of stock) by increasing the total number of shares.

adjective
Weakened; diluted.

So do you get it now? It was diluted, got watered down by adding more teams.

Ponch
06-09-2011, 09:54 PM
Are you stupid enough to want to compare that bulls roster to that jazz roster?

The four main players for the Bulls that yr.

Pippen 10th yr 32 yrs old
Rodman 11th yr 36 yrs old
Harper 11th yr 34 yrs old
Jordan 12th yr 34 yrs old

Jazz
Stockton 13th yr 35 yrs old
Malone 12th yr 34 yrs old
Hornacek 11th yr 34 yrs old
Keefe & Russell the other main contributors were in their 4th & 5th yr so I guess I was stupid enough to compare the rosters & look what I came up with.
Try this link & learn some stuff....

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 09:54 PM
90s had more talent then this era.....

Prove it or dont post again

jp611
06-09-2011, 09:56 PM
Seriously I'm trying to watch the game, but I'll ****ing murder you with facts when this game is over

effen5
06-09-2011, 09:58 PM
Prove it or dont post again

How about you prove that they don't or you don't post again....

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:01 PM
The four main players for the Bulls that yr.

Pippen 10th yr 32 yrs old
Rodman 11th yr 36 yrs old
Harper 11th yr 34 yrs old
Jordan 12th yr 34 yrs old

Jazz
Stockton 13th yr 35 yrs old
Malone 12th yr 34 yrs old
Hornacek 11th yr 34 yrs old
Keefe & Russell the other main contributors were in their 4th & 5th yr so I guess I was stupid enough to compare the rosters & look what I came up with.
Try this link & learn some stuff....

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Harper better than hornacek,keefe, and russell. So they already lose with their next three players after an old stockton and malone.
Rodman way better defensively and rebounding than malone, malone is just better offensively, it's pretty much a wash.
Stockton wins the pg matchup i guess, eh.
Jordan and pippen are pretty much all alone by themselves now. Can you really compare that?
Lets not forget the international star kukoc coming off the bench.
Plus luc longley>>>>>>>greg ostertag
Jazz lose up and down that roster.

Sadds The Gr8
06-09-2011, 10:01 PM
cool story bruh

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:02 PM
Harper better than hornacek,keefe, and russell. So they already lose with their next three players after an old stockton and malone.
Rodman way better defensively and rebounding than malone, malone is just better offensively, it's pretty much a wash.
Stockton wins the pg matchup i guess, eh.
Jordan and pippen are pretty much all alone by themselves now. Can you really compare that?
Lets not forget the international star kukoc coming off the bench.
Plus luc longley>>>>>>>greg ostertag
Jazz lose up and down that roster.

Yea, thats why the Bulls won the championship... no rosters could hang with the Bulls in the 90s because Jordan and Pippen owned

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:02 PM
How about you prove that they don't or you don't post again....

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, don't post unless you know what you are even posting about or arguing. exit please.

Ponch
06-09-2011, 10:03 PM
Seriously I'm trying to watch the game, but I'll ****ing murder you with facts when this game is over

Look back at the post I made (#30) about how he asked someone if they were stupid enough to compare the Jazz's "old" roster to the Bulls roster that yr.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:04 PM
Yea, thats why the Bulls won the championship... no rosters could hang with the Bulls in the 90s because Jordan and Pippen owned

Maybe no rosters could hang because the nba added 7 teams since the bulls got jordan and pippen? Ever thought of what happened before the nba started to expand? Jordan 1-10 without pippen, them not winning until the nba started to expand?

Ponch
06-09-2011, 10:05 PM
Harper better than hornacek,keefe, and russell. So they already lose with their next three players after an old stockton and malone.
Rodman way better defensively and rebounding than malone, malone is just better offensively, it's pretty much a wash.
Stockton wins the pg matchup i guess, eh.
Jordan and pippen are pretty much all alone by themselves now. Can you really compare that?
Lets not forget the international star kukoc coming off the bench.
Plus luc longley>>>>>>>greg ostertag
Jazz lose up and down that roster.

Kind of funny that you are spinning it this way now when the original post was about comparing an "old" roster to the Bulls.

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:05 PM
Look back at the post I made (#30) about how he asked someone if they were stupid enough to compare the Jazz's "old" roster to the Bulls roster that yr.

Your post has already lost, naming keefe and russell in your argument.

effen5
06-09-2011, 10:05 PM
Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, don't post unless you know what you are even posting about or arguing. exit please.

Why because you can't prove that the players in the 90s are better then the players in 00?

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:06 PM
Maybe no rosters could hang because the nba added 7 teams since the bulls got jordan and pippen? Ever thought of what happened before the nba started to expand? Jordan 1-10 without pippen, them not winning until the nba started to expand?

Name the 7 teams, it was actually 4

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:06 PM
Kind of funny that you are spinning it this way now when the original post was about comparing an "old" roster to the Bulls.

Uh, i said old stockton and malone is all the jazz had, learn to comprehend.

effen5
06-09-2011, 10:07 PM
Maybe no rosters could hang because the nba added 7 teams since the bulls got jordan and pippen? Ever thought of what happened before the nba started to expand? Jordan 1-10 without pippen, them not winning until the nba started to expand?

Or....maybe no rosters could hang because MJ > all?

Ponch
06-09-2011, 10:07 PM
Yea, thats why the Bulls won the championship... no rosters could hang with the Bulls in the 90s because Jordan and Pippen owned

Nope....they were only good because the league was watered down. Listen to D-Russ, he'll explain it to you. He has a vast fountain of superior knowledge than the rest of us.

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:08 PM
And 2 of those expansion teams were pretty good teams in the 90s as well... The Heat and the Magic :laugh2:

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:09 PM
Excuse me, 3 of them... Cuz the Hornets were good too :laugh:

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:11 PM
Name the 7 teams, it was actually 4

i apologize it was actually 6
http://oi56.tinypic.com/1zlx6x2.jpg

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:12 PM
You're right there were 6, and 3 of them were good teams in the 90's

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:12 PM
And 2 of those expansion teams were pretty good teams in the 90s as well... The Heat and the Magic :laugh2:

That actually gives more evidence that the league was watered down( which it clearly was if you know the definition of dilute). When an expansion team can come in and make the playoffs, i mean come on.

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:14 PM
:pity:

NO IT DOESNT, they had hall of fame players on their teams

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:14 PM
You aren't saying facts, saying "the 90's was the best" isn't a fact. People would say the 70's and 80's were better, but of course you are so arrogant to put the 90's above all because it's what you grew up on.

Expanding a league does what? dilute the talent

di·lute (dī-lo͞otˈ, dĭ-)
transitive verb diluted di·lut·ed, diluting di·lut·ing, di·lutes

1. To make thinner or less concentrated by adding a liquid such as water.
2. To lessen the force, strength, purity, or brilliance of, especially by admixture.
3. To decrease the value of (shares of stock) by increasing the total number of shares.

adjective
Weakened; diluted.

So do you get it now? It was diluted, got watered down by adding more teams.

I really wish people understood certain words

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:15 PM
:pity:

NO IT DOESNT, they had hall of fame players on their teams

Having a HOF player doesnt mean you will make the playoffs or even be above 500.

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:17 PM
Dude, Shaq, Mourning, LJ, Glen Rice were just some of the guys on these teams... don't ****ing tell me the league was watered down... if anything its watered down now, because theres only a handful of teams that legitimately have a chance to win

JasonJohnHorn
06-09-2011, 10:17 PM
The game was expanding around the world. The expansion in the late 80's/early90's was good for the league. It brought teams to Canada, and created room for European players. And had players like Sabonis been able to come over earlier (communist block slowed the expansion of the game down), the league would have been even better.

I think the league is deeper now than it ever has been. I look at teams like Miami, who arent even considered deep by many, and they have talented guys like Haslem and Big Z coming off the bench?

I think 30 is a good number for the league right now, 6 equal sized divisions, two equal sized conferences. If a new city were to get an NBA team, I'd rather see a team move there than be expanded.

Back in the day when there was only 8 teams, or 10, or 12, you still played 82 games, and the teams that you could beat, you beat over and over again. Even if they were deep. If you had the edge, you had the edge. Now you play every team at once at hom and on the road, that is 29 different teams you play, and you have to be able to adjust to different players, different coaching styles, and it makes the league healthier because you arent playing the same team 10 times and already know how to beat them.

i wouldnt want to see further expansion anytime soon, but I like the expansion that took place.

Rather than expansion I'd rather see sister league open up in Europe/Asia and have them develop their talent over a decade and then have the two champs start playing each other for a world title, not just a national one.

jp611
06-09-2011, 10:18 PM
Big Z is not talented anymore buddy, he's ****ing garbage

Darrell Russell
06-09-2011, 10:20 PM
The game was expanding around the world.

The game truly expanded around the world in the 00's, easily.

The expansion in the late 80's/early90's was good for the league.

In the long run, that is obvious.

created room for European players. And had players like Sabonis been able to come over earlier (communist block slowed the expansion of the game down), the league would have been even better.

Exactly another point. The 2000's led to foreign players coming over earlier, and you said the league would have been even better, well that is what you have today.

I think the league is deeper now than it ever has been. I look at teams like Miami, who arent even considered deep by many, and they have talented guys like Haslem and Big Z coming off the bench?

I think 30 is a good number for the league right now, 6 equal sized divisions, two equal sized conferences. If a new city were to get an NBA team, I'd rather see a team move there than be expanded.

30 would be perfect.

Back in the day when there was only 8 teams, or 10, or 12, you still played 82 games, and the teams that you could beat, you beat over and over again. Even if they were deep. If you had the edge, you had the edge. Now you play every team at once at hom and on the road, that is 29 different teams you play, and you have to be able to adjust to different players, different coaching styles, and it makes the league healthier because you arent playing the same team 10 times and already know how to beat them.

i wouldnt want to see further expansion anytime soon, but I like the expansion that took place.

Rather than expansion I'd rather see sister league open up in Europe/Asia and have them develop their talent over a decade and then have the two champs start playing each other for a world title, not just a national one.

That was a great post

Chronz
06-09-2011, 10:35 PM
where did they say that?

Whenever someone mentions MJ's era after 93

bholly
06-09-2011, 11:39 PM
Darrell, are you trying to say expansion caused the influx of foreigners and player evolution, or do you think they each happened independently?

If you think expansion caused those things, then how?

If you think they were independent, then doesn't the expansion/dilution thing work against your argument? Surely with more teams now, a given talent stock would be more diluted, so the Heat would be facing lesser competition? Shouldn't your argument be that the current teams face greater competition because of foreigner influx and player evolution and despite expansion, not because of expansion?

Darrell Russell
06-10-2011, 12:41 AM
Darrell, are you trying to say expansion caused the influx of foreigners and player evolution, or do you think they each happened independently?

Irrelevant to the dilution point.


If you think expansion caused those things, then how?

If you think they were independent, then doesn't the expansion/dilution thing work against your argument?

No, nothing works against my argument because it is infallible.


Surely with more teams now, a given talent stock would be more diluted, so the Heat would be facing lesser competition?

No, and why bring up the heat wtf?

Shouldn't your argument be that the current teams face greater competition because of foreigner influx and player evolution and despite expansion, not because of expansion?

I didn't say because of expansion dude, read, the other guy said it.



I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make with those questions , but it didn't counter anything i've directly said.
Foreign players and evolution led to the game being stronger, which undid what the expansion did in the 90's, which was make it a weaker game.

bholly
06-10-2011, 01:34 AM
No the nba was just so watered down at that point, the jazz weren't a good team and only had old stockton and old malone. Look at that roster and see how terrible it is.


So the nba wasn't watered down during the expansion era? Really? That is what you are saying right now? You do realize what expansion does to a league, correct?


:laugh:

NBA was at it's best than, clown


Can you back that up? Do you know what expansion does to a league? Answer that please

These are your initial posts on this expansion topic. In a conversation about whether the Heat are the best defensive team ever, someone mentioned the 90s Bulls as being better. Your response to that, in supporting your position that the Heat are the best defense ever, is that the Bulls weren't because they were in a post-expansion watered down NBA that therefore wasn't as good.

I'm asking what being post-expansion has to do with it. The league now is still post-expansion, and in fact has had even more expansion. I don't think your argument is that the league is better now because of expansion (because that doesn't make any sense), I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your argument is that the league is better now because of foreign player influx and player evolution.

So what I'm asking is, given that appears to be your argument, why do you keep bringing up the expansion as evidence of it? Do you think the expansion caused those things that made the league tougher now? If not, how is expansion relevant to your argument?

pentel1980
06-10-2011, 01:54 AM
HTF is this thread 5 pages long?