PDA

View Full Version : Is the NBA entering a "golden age" or is social media creating stars?



Giannis94
01-09-2017, 01:07 PM
Serious question. I was born in the early 90's so maybe someone else can answer this question. It seems like the NBA has a large # of stars that are or will be super-stars within in the next 5-6 years. I watched on and off in the 2000's and obviously am aware of the main ones.

Right now it seems the NBA has an unsually high number of "stars", or at least "fringe stars", or a player with a hell of a lot of potential.

So is the NBA entering a "Golden age" or are we, via social/media, and fans overrating our own players?

FlashBolt
01-09-2017, 02:08 PM
I'm not sure. I think NBA as a whole has never had this amount of talent but the issue is they lack discipline. Most of these players are clearly just interested in the money. Granted, they do want to win but they don't want to be the one who leads a team to that winning method. No doubt, social media has given us more opportunities to watch a certain player or exciting play that if you missed in the 80's to early 2000's, you'll have to wait a few days just to see it again.

What's with the list of names under your sig? I like Giannis a lot but I'm not willing to suck his D.

tredigs
01-09-2017, 02:19 PM
The late 80's to mid 90's had massive superstar talent as well. But this is the highest breadth of talent since then (at the top and overall), and I do think that the league as a whole is stronger now than ever. Some of that has to do with the fact that we're borderline using cheat codes with the full proliferation of the 3pt shot and how to best use it. We have three "legend level" offenses from an efficiency standpoint right now (as in 3 of the top 10 all time), and it's not due to a lack of defense.

warfelg
01-09-2017, 02:23 PM
Social media isn't creating stars. It's bringing them to the spotlight faster than before.

Think if I wanted to see Harden play in the early 90's I had to rely on a nationally televised game or until he came to town.

Now I can watch league pass, check twitter, look at Reddit and see what he does. No need for his team to be good enough to get lots of nationally televised games.

valade16
01-09-2017, 03:08 PM
PSK showed a league adjusted RAPM chart that showed the strongest points in the league. The last couple years were at the top along with the early 90's and that seems about right to me. The most superstar talent I can recall.

Alayla
01-09-2017, 03:31 PM
I'm not sure. I think NBA as a whole has never had this amount of talent but the issue is they lack discipline. Most of these players are clearly just interested in the money. Granted, they do want to win but they don't want to be the one who leads a team to that winning method. No doubt, social media has given us more opportunities to watch a certain player or exciting play that if you missed in the 80's to early 2000's, you'll have to wait a few days just to see it again.

What's with the list of names under your sig? I like Giannis a lot but I'm not willing to suck his D.

Right Giannis is my favourite player in the NBA atm but clearly im some kind of hater for saying Simmons could be as good or better being of the same mold gg.

Giannis94
01-09-2017, 03:50 PM
I'm not sure. I think NBA as a whole has never had this amount of talent but the issue is they lack discipline. Most of these players are clearly just interested in the money. Granted, they do want to win but they don't want to be the one who leads a team to that winning method. No doubt, social media has given us more opportunities to watch a certain player or exciting play that if you missed in the 80's to early 2000's, you'll have to wait a few days just to see it again.

What's with the list of names under your sig? I like Giannis a lot but I'm not willing to suck his D.

Fair enough. Have hyper-linked my sig.

I will stop trolling indefinitley.

PowerHouse
01-09-2017, 03:57 PM
Its definitely over-hype coming from the media. Im kind of with Barkley who thinks this is a low point in the NBA as far as top tier talent. Although Barkley says the current era is the worst ever, I believe the mid-late 70s was worse.

Giannis94
01-09-2017, 04:04 PM
Its definitely over-hype coming from the media. Im kind of with Barkley who thinks this is a low point in the NBA as far as top tier talent. Although Barkley says the current era is the worst ever, I believe the mid-late 70s was worse.

Well when top tier talent continually kills itself off by joining super teams, what would you expect?

Top tier talent- "super stars"

Kawhi
AD
Lebron
Curry
KD
Harden
CP3
DMC (could be fringy)
Westy

The next tier (no order)- "Stars"
PG
Embiid
KP
Giannis
Melo
Klove
Kyrie
Dray
Klay
Jimmy Butler
Marc Gasol (centers need loving to)
Drummond
Blake
IT
Hordford
Whiteside
KAT
Lillard


I actually think there are a lot of "stars"

valade16
01-09-2017, 04:14 PM
Well when top tier talent continually kills itself off by joining super teams, what would you expect?

Top tier talent- "super stars"

Kawhi
AD
Lebron
Curry
KD
Harden
CP3
DMC (could be fringy)
Westy

The next tier (no order)- "Stars"
PG
Embiid
KP
Giannis
Melo
Klove
Kyrie
Dray
Klay
Jimmy Butler
Marc Gasol (centers need loving to)
Drummond
Blake
IT
Hordford
Whiteside
KAT
Lillard


I actually think there are a lot of "stars"

Cousins is not a superstar and wouldn't be in most other eras because his team doesn't win.

As for the stars, several of those guys aren't even stars yet they're just really young with lots of potential (Embiid, KP, KAT) and several aren't exactly stars (or at least there are a dozen comparable stars to them in any era) such as Horford, Whiteside, or Drummond.

More-Than-Most
01-09-2017, 04:15 PM
Its the Golden age is upon us because people trust the process....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEM7kTt-1EM


BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE.

More-Than-Most
01-09-2017, 04:17 PM
Cousins is not a superstar and wouldn't be in most other eras because his team doesn't win.

As for the stars, several of those guys aren't even stars yet they're just really young with lots of potential (Embiid, KP, KAT) and several aren't exactly stars (or at least there are a dozen comparable stars to them in any era) such as Horford, Whiteside, or Drummond.

So AD whom is wildly known as a top 3-7 player is a star because his team made the playoffs once and stunk every year before and after? That is interesting to me that making the playoffs once and being ousted is the line from star to superstar :shrug:

valade16
01-09-2017, 04:21 PM
So AD whom is wildly known as a top 3-7 player is a star because his team made the playoffs once and stunk every year before and after? That is interesting to me that making the playoffs once and being ousted is the line from star to superstar :shrug:

He'd probably be borderline on Star to Superstar as well IMO.

But AD has had better stats and his teams by and large haven't been as bad as Boogie's (this year aside).

So yeah, probably knock AD down to the stars list as well.

FlashBolt
01-09-2017, 04:22 PM
So AD whom is wildly known as a top 3-7 player is a star because his team made the playoffs once and stunk every year before and after? That is interesting to me that making the playoffs once and being ousted is the line from star to superstar :shrug:

Gotta look at their age, ability, temperament. defense, etc.,

Cousins has had the better team as well if we're being honest. AD would kill to have a player like Rudy Gay on his team. Cousins is older, talented but not at the skillset of AD, terrible temper that has been a huge issue, and his defense isn't at AD's level.

Hawkeye15
01-09-2017, 04:22 PM
Its definitely over-hype coming from the media. Im kind of with Barkley who thinks this is a low point in the NBA as far as top tier talent. Although Barkley says the current era is the worst ever, I believe the mid-late 70s was worse.

literally nobody should care what Barkley says.

FlashBolt
01-09-2017, 04:27 PM
Barkley is an idiot. Dude said Klay is a top two player.. also said Klay is a better all around player than anyone not named LeBron.. I actually thought he was kidding until he kept repeating it.

More-Than-Most
01-09-2017, 04:32 PM
I just find it incredibly lazy to say a player isnt a top player because he didnt make the playoffs or win in a sport that isnt golf.... If we go this route should we put guys like tony parker above a stockton... you cant have it both ways you just cant... you cant handicap guys for wins and losses but then excuse greatness when greatness on stacked teams never won a championships... Its the same lazy logic knocking CP3 down in the other thread because even though he has been pretty legendary in the playoffs he hasnt won a ring

Yet iverson is a top 50 player? Melo was known as a top 3 player at one point and will go down as probably a top 25-50 player.

Serious question... Durant is known as a top 3 player in basketball... Who has had more talent around them more often and performed better in the playoffs? Cp3 or Durant? You would think Durant has 5 championships to cp3 0 with the passes one has gotten over the years.

FlashBolt
01-09-2017, 04:56 PM
I just find it incredibly lazy to say a player isnt a top player because he didnt make the playoffs or win in a sport that isnt golf.... If we go this route should we put guys like tony parker above a stockton... you cant have it both ways you just cant... you cant handicap guys for wins and losses but then excuse greatness when greatness on stacked teams never won a championships... Its the same lazy logic knocking CP3 down in the other thread because even though he has been pretty legendary in the playoffs he hasnt won a ring

Yet iverson is a top 50 player? Melo was known as a top 3 player at one point and will go down as probably a top 25-50 player.

Serious question... Durant is known as a top 3 player in basketball... Who has had more talent around them more often and performed better in the playoffs? Cp3 or Durant? You would think Durant has 5 championships to cp3 0 with the passes one has gotten over the years.

Yeah, it happened with Kevin Love, too. He was crazy close to leading his team to the playoffs in a tough WC and has the label of "stat-stuffer." Hell, we all know barring injuries, OKC would have been in the playoffs and not the Pelicans.

PowerHouse
01-09-2017, 05:01 PM
literally nobody should care what Barkley says.

I get where you're coming from. Its just once in a blue moon that he says something that I partially agree with.

Quinnsanity
01-11-2017, 06:12 PM
This is a golden age on two levels:

First, we happen to be in an incredibly dense era of talent. LeBron compares favorably to the best player from any era. Curry just had the greatest offensive season in NBA history. Westbrook is about to be the first player since the 60's to average a triple double. Harden is very close behind, and neither of them have the pace (teams played significantly faster back then) and roster (fat white dudes who smoked cigars between games were fairly common back then) advantages that Oscar had. KD is functionally a 50-40-90 player every single year. I would put those five against the best five from literally any era in league history, and that doesn't include the depth behind them. I mean really look at the "golden era" of the mid-80's.

In 1985 Terry Cummings finished 5th in MVP. Calvin Natt was 11th. Mark Eaton, Purvis Short and Paul Pressey got votes. We really overrate how deep the talent was back then. A lot of it just happened to be consolidated on a few teams, so we all stupidly thought "man, guys like James Worthy and Kevin McHale aren't even the best players on their team, the league must be loaded!" But that wasn't really what was happening. Two teams (maybe three if you want to count Philly with Moses, Doc, Toney and later Barkley) just managed to fleece everyone else and control all of the best players. Compare that to nowadays. Terry Cummings is a fine player, but no effing way was he more impactful than Jimmy Butler, Boogie, Paul George, Kawhi, Anthony Davis and so on. He was a 23 and 9 power forward who didn't play much defense. Neat. So he was basically Carlos Boozer.

Not to pick on Terry Cummings, he's just the easiest punching bag here. There are plenty more. Reggie Theus scored the 9th most points of the decade in the 80's. Slow *** sasquatch Mark Eaton won two DPOY's just because he was tall. I could do this **** all day. Compare that to nowadays. Isaiah Thomas is scoring 28 efficient points per night and we can't stop talking about how the Celtics need a superstar. C.J. McCollum is pretty much doing the same thing (slightly lower volume, slightly better efficiency) and he's not even gonna sniff the All Star game. Rudy Gay is basically a 20 PPG scorer who does nothing else. You know what they called those guys in the 80's? ALL STARS. Go ask Walter Davis. Or Jim Paxson. Or Kelly Tripucka. Nowadays the Kings can't even give Rudy Gay away. And none of these guys are even superstars! The sheer depth of talent we have now is mind blowing. We're seriously at a point right now where we have to ask questions like "is Damian Lillard one of the 10 best point guards in the league?" and "The Clippers have three All Stars and one of the best three-and-D shooting guards in basketball, is this the year they make it out of the second round?" A Kemba Walker caliber player in the 80's is a five-time All Star. Don't believe me? Go look up Otis Birdsong. There may have been similar top-end talent in the so called "golden age," but there's FAR more overall talent to go around the league nowadays.

Second, we're in a far more knowledgeable, creative era of basketball in which unusual players are able to thrive because coaches and GMs are willing to overlook their deficiencies and find the right uses for them in ways old school basketball people wouldn't. In the past, Draymond Green was a small forward and that was that. What would the league have done with Giannis, a 6'11'' super athlete who was too skinny to play forward but couldn't shoot like a guard? We had no idea how good Paul Millsap was until he got to Atlanta and didn't have Jerry Sloan barking in his ear to box out and do nothing else. In the old days McCollum would've been playing 12 minutes a game as Lillard's backup because he's the size of a point guard.

It's not just positional fluidity though. Find me a power forward from the 80's who has as much freedom to create as Blake Griffin does? We're now legitimately in an era in which Joel Embiid is going to get to experiment as the ball-handler in the pick-and-roll. That was completely unheard of as recently as a decade ago, much less three or four. Oklahoma City nearly upset Golden State last year largely because of the rebounding and cutting contributions of their shooting guard Andre Roberson.

Teams are simply better at finding uses for their players, which takes more average players and makes them good and takes more good players and makes them great. That's a big reason we have such a deep pool of talent nowadays. Coaches are creative. Old school rules are being thrown out the window. There are no more wasted players, everyone has a chance to show what they can do.

TL;DR: we have more great players than the 80's and we're smarter about how to use them.

Quinnsanity
01-11-2017, 06:17 PM
Yeah, it happened with Kevin Love, too. He was crazy close to leading his team to the playoffs in a tough WC and has the label of "stat-stuffer." Hell, we all know barring injuries, OKC would have been in the playoffs and not the Pelicans.

Oh don't get me goddamn started on the Kevin Love nonsense. It's ****ing ludicrous. Minnesota had a +4.4 net rating with Love on the floor in his last year with the Wolves. That's the net rating of roughly a 50-win team. They only won 40 games. What does that tell you? That their bench was ****ing horrific. Yet idiots saw fit to blame Love for that. It was insane. If Kevin Love had been drafted by even a slightly functional organization, at his peak he was the sort of player you could build a mid-50's win team around and consistently win a playoff series or two with.

R. Johnson#3
01-11-2017, 06:27 PM
I think the NBA is entering a new period of star big men. Only this time instead of being crafty and/or strong on the inside they have a well rounded game. KAT, Porzingis, Embiid, Davis and Boogie are the type of guys I'm talking about.

JasonJohnHorn
01-12-2017, 09:30 AM
I feel like the NBA hit a spot where fans got something they weren't used to seeing. The 80's and 90's saw three dominant dynasties: Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls. These dynasties were validated by the fact that you had teams like the 76ers and Detroit Pistons, good enough to win as they proved, being beaten by the dynasties. There were also iconic players abounding throughout the league: Kareem, Magic, Bird, Dr. J. and then Jordan.

As the Lakers rolled to three titles, there was little competition in the finals: they seemed a formality. Shaq was iconic, and Kobe was quickly becoming so as well, but who else in the league was on that level?

The Spurs proved to by a dynasty as well, but an unconventional one that won once every 2-5 years over a 20-year period, and it's star, while among the best players ever, was a meek star that, while iconic among basketball fans, has little to no name recognition among people who don't follow the sport. They also won without getting on the highlight reel.

The league also slowed down a lot in this time (and had been since the Bulls' second 3-peat). More defence, and a slower pace kept games within striking distance for average to above average teams, but didn't generate that jaw-dropping stats that casual fans could remark at.

Now the league is returning to a faster pace and higher scoring games. Averages are rising with this tread, so casual fans now have the raw stats that they can gasp at. The league has more iconic players now than is did when Shaq and Duncan were beating up on the Nets in the finals, and a team of no-name players in Detroit were the biggest obstacle for everybody in the league for a four-year period (obviously I'm partial to that team, but I recognize how difficult it is to market such a team to casual fans).

Now we have LBJ and the Cavs. We have Curry and KD and the Warriors. We have Westy averaging a triple double. We have the perennial contenders in the Spurs. We have the Rockets on pace for 60 wins behind a historic season from James Harden. We have lop-city in LAC. We have Westy averaging a triple double. Faster pace, higher averages, more recognizable teams/contenders. I think this creates a perfect storm to pull in casual fans and allow people to recognize how impressive certain players are. I think guys in the interim period didn't get the recognition they deserve, but there were a lot of great players rolling through between 99-2010. But the game was a little slower.

It is a golden age of a new style of game with a heavy 3-ball focus. The 80's/90's was a golden age of post-up players.


These guys today deserve the cred they are getting.

Miltstar
01-12-2017, 04:26 PM
I honestly think it just comes down to big men refining their games and not just relying on their size, that's the major change to me.

valade16
01-12-2017, 04:29 PM
I honestly think it just comes down to big men refining their games and not just relying on their size, that's the major change to me.

I think it's changing their games more than refining them. I also don't think big men simply relied on their size.

Big men today are learning other skills like shooting but they are losing a lot of skills like footwork and post moves. Hakeem would run circles around anyone in the league today from a post moves perspective, as would most other great C's of yesteryear. Hakeem certainly didn't rely on his size to dominate either.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2017, 04:33 PM
I get where you're coming from. Its just once in a blue moon that he says something that I partially agree with.

this isn't one of them, but I agree. I used to have a bathroom book with Barkley quotes, and every now and then, he nails it. Otherwise, he is an idiot.

I find it very hard listening to most ex players out of the game, try and give their opinion. Many of them are full of pride, and just can't admit life goes on without them.

Chronz
01-12-2017, 04:35 PM
This is a golden age on two levels:

First, we happen to be in an incredibly dense era of talent. LeBron compares favorably to the best player from any era. Curry just had the greatest offensive season in NBA history. Westbrook is about to be the first player since the 60's to average a triple double. Harden is very close behind, and neither of them have the pace (teams played significantly faster back then) and roster (fat white dudes who smoked cigars between games were fairly common back then) advantages that Oscar had. KD is functionally a 50-40-90 player every single year. I would put those five against the best five from literally any era in league history, and that doesn't include the depth behind them. I mean really look at the "golden era" of the mid-80's.

In 1985 Terry Cummings finished 5th in MVP. Calvin Natt was 11th. Mark Eaton, Purvis Short and Paul Pressey got votes. We really overrate how deep the talent was back then. A lot of it just happened to be consolidated on a few teams, so we all stupidly thought "man, guys like James Worthy and Kevin McHale aren't even the best players on their team, the league must be loaded!" But that wasn't really what was happening. Two teams (maybe three if you want to count Philly with Moses, Doc, Toney and later Barkley) just managed to fleece everyone else and control all of the best players. Compare that to nowadays. Terry Cummings is a fine player, but no effing way was he more impactful than Jimmy Butler, Boogie, Paul George, Kawhi, Anthony Davis and so on. He was a 23 and 9 power forward who didn't play much defense. Neat. So he was basically Carlos Boozer.

Not to pick on Terry Cummings, he's just the easiest punching bag here. There are plenty more. Reggie Theus scored the 9th most points of the decade in the 80's. Slow *** sasquatch Mark Eaton won two DPOY's just because he was tall. I could do this **** all day. Compare that to nowadays. Isaiah Thomas is scoring 28 efficient points per night and we can't stop talking about how the Celtics need a superstar. C.J. McCollum is pretty much doing the same thing (slightly lower volume, slightly better efficiency) and he's not even gonna sniff the All Star game. Rudy Gay is basically a 20 PPG scorer who does nothing else. You know what they called those guys in the 80's? ALL STARS. Go ask Walter Davis. Or Jim Paxson. Or Kelly Tripucka. Nowadays the Kings can't even give Rudy Gay away. And none of these guys are even superstars! The sheer depth of talent we have now is mind blowing. We're seriously at a point right now where we have to ask questions like "is Damian Lillard one of the 10 best point guards in the league?" and "The Clippers have three All Stars and one of the best three-and-D shooting guards in basketball, is this the year they make it out of the second round?" A Kemba Walker caliber player in the 80's is a five-time All Star. Don't believe me? Go look up Otis Birdsong. There may have been similar top-end talent in the so called "golden age," but there's FAR more overall talent to go around the league nowadays.

Second, we're in a far more knowledgeable, creative era of basketball in which unusual players are able to thrive because coaches and GMs are willing to overlook their deficiencies and find the right uses for them in ways old school basketball people wouldn't. In the past, Draymond Green was a small forward and that was that. What would the league have done with Giannis, a 6'11'' super athlete who was too skinny to play forward but couldn't shoot like a guard? We had no idea how good Paul Millsap was until he got to Atlanta and didn't have Jerry Sloan barking in his ear to box out and do nothing else. In the old days McCollum would've been playing 12 minutes a game as Lillard's backup because he's the size of a point guard.

It's not just positional fluidity though. Find me a power forward from the 80's who has as much freedom to create as Blake Griffin does? We're now legitimately in an era in which Joel Embiid is going to get to experiment as the ball-handler in the pick-and-roll. That was completely unheard of as recently as a decade ago, much less three or four. Oklahoma City nearly upset Golden State last year largely because of the rebounding and cutting contributions of their shooting guard Andre Roberson.

Teams are simply better at finding uses for their players, which takes more average players and makes them good and takes more good players and makes them great. That's a big reason we have such a deep pool of talent nowadays. Coaches are creative. Old school rules are being thrown out the window. There are no more wasted players, everyone has a chance to show what they can do.

TL;DR: we have more great players than the 80's and we're smarter about how to use them.
Read through half of this before i had to applaud you. I'll check it out but i always thought we held individuals today to such a high standard just because the 90s saw how 1 man could transform a team. But if the league is deeper than ever, 1 man has less of an impact

Chronz
01-12-2017, 04:42 PM
Oh don't get me goddamn started on the Kevin Love nonsense. It's ****ing ludicrous. Minnesota had a +4.4 net rating with Love on the floor in his last year with the Wolves. That's the net rating of roughly a 50-win team. They only won 40 games. What does that tell you? That their bench was ****ing horrific. Yet idiots saw fit to blame Love for that. It was insane. If Kevin Love had been drafted by even a slightly functional organization, at his peak he was the sort of player you could build a mid-50's win team around and consistently win a playoff series or two with.
Thats true and all, i love net ratings but there were very real deficiencies with that club in tight games that were hard to simply chalk up to luck.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2017, 04:45 PM
I honestly think it just comes down to big men refining their games and not just relying on their size, that's the major change to me.

another huge change, is the hand check being lifted, so guys who would have been SG's back in the day, are now these high scoring machines at the PG position. Rose, Westbrook, Curry, Lillard, etc, those guys would have been SG's back in the 80-90's. Or at least some of them. So we have a league run by perimeter oriented players, and spacing. Obviously big men can still dominate, but their roles have changed

Hawkeye15
01-12-2017, 04:47 PM
This is a golden age on two levels:

First, we happen to be in an incredibly dense era of talent. LeBron compares favorably to the best player from any era. Curry just had the greatest offensive season in NBA history. Westbrook is about to be the first player since the 60's to average a triple double. Harden is very close behind, and neither of them have the pace (teams played significantly faster back then) and roster (fat white dudes who smoked cigars between games were fairly common back then) advantages that Oscar had. KD is functionally a 50-40-90 player every single year. I would put those five against the best five from literally any era in league history, and that doesn't include the depth behind them. I mean really look at the "golden era" of the mid-80's.

In 1985 Terry Cummings finished 5th in MVP. Calvin Natt was 11th. Mark Eaton, Purvis Short and Paul Pressey got votes. We really overrate how deep the talent was back then. A lot of it just happened to be consolidated on a few teams, so we all stupidly thought "man, guys like James Worthy and Kevin McHale aren't even the best players on their team, the league must be loaded!" But that wasn't really what was happening. Two teams (maybe three if you want to count Philly with Moses, Doc, Toney and later Barkley) just managed to fleece everyone else and control all of the best players. Compare that to nowadays. Terry Cummings is a fine player, but no effing way was he more impactful than Jimmy Butler, Boogie, Paul George, Kawhi, Anthony Davis and so on. He was a 23 and 9 power forward who didn't play much defense. Neat. So he was basically Carlos Boozer.

Not to pick on Terry Cummings, he's just the easiest punching bag here. There are plenty more. Reggie Theus scored the 9th most points of the decade in the 80's. Slow *** sasquatch Mark Eaton won two DPOY's just because he was tall. I could do this **** all day. Compare that to nowadays. Isaiah Thomas is scoring 28 efficient points per night and we can't stop talking about how the Celtics need a superstar. C.J. McCollum is pretty much doing the same thing (slightly lower volume, slightly better efficiency) and he's not even gonna sniff the All Star game. Rudy Gay is basically a 20 PPG scorer who does nothing else. You know what they called those guys in the 80's? ALL STARS. Go ask Walter Davis. Or Jim Paxson. Or Kelly Tripucka. Nowadays the Kings can't even give Rudy Gay away. And none of these guys are even superstars! The sheer depth of talent we have now is mind blowing. We're seriously at a point right now where we have to ask questions like "is Damian Lillard one of the 10 best point guards in the league?" and "The Clippers have three All Stars and one of the best three-and-D shooting guards in basketball, is this the year they make it out of the second round?" A Kemba Walker caliber player in the 80's is a five-time All Star. Don't believe me? Go look up Otis Birdsong. There may have been similar top-end talent in the so called "golden age," but there's FAR more overall talent to go around the league nowadays.

Second, we're in a far more knowledgeable, creative era of basketball in which unusual players are able to thrive because coaches and GMs are willing to overlook their deficiencies and find the right uses for them in ways old school basketball people wouldn't. In the past, Draymond Green was a small forward and that was that. What would the league have done with Giannis, a 6'11'' super athlete who was too skinny to play forward but couldn't shoot like a guard? We had no idea how good Paul Millsap was until he got to Atlanta and didn't have Jerry Sloan barking in his ear to box out and do nothing else. In the old days McCollum would've been playing 12 minutes a game as Lillard's backup because he's the size of a point guard.

It's not just positional fluidity though. Find me a power forward from the 80's who has as much freedom to create as Blake Griffin does? We're now legitimately in an era in which Joel Embiid is going to get to experiment as the ball-handler in the pick-and-roll. That was completely unheard of as recently as a decade ago, much less three or four. Oklahoma City nearly upset Golden State last year largely because of the rebounding and cutting contributions of their shooting guard Andre Roberson.

Teams are simply better at finding uses for their players, which takes more average players and makes them good and takes more good players and makes them great. That's a big reason we have such a deep pool of talent nowadays. Coaches are creative. Old school rules are being thrown out the window. There are no more wasted players, everyone has a chance to show what they can do.

TL;DR: we have more great players than the 80's and we're smarter about how to use them.

sports evolve. People want to cling on to their youth, their favorites, etc. They just don't realize, the game now, is probably full or more talent, in every aspect of the game, than ever before.

valade16
01-12-2017, 05:24 PM
Does anyone say the 80's was the Golden era for talent? I don't really hear anyone talk about how talented the 80's was, most in fact recognize it wasn't that talented. Usually they refer to the early 90's.

Chronz
01-12-2017, 06:01 PM
another huge change, is the hand check being lifted, so guys who would have been SG's back in the day, are now these high scoring machines at the PG position. Rose, Westbrook, Curry, Lillard, etc, those guys would have been SG's back in the 80-90's. Or at least some of them. So we have a league run by perimeter oriented players, and spacing. Obviously big men can still dominate, but their roles have changed
I don't know if that's as true as it once was. Lots of gms and suits have agreed they are allowing more contact than when the rule was first introduced. The bigger change has been the amount of spacing we have and our understanding of the game. The 90s werent smart enough to take advantage

Chronz
01-12-2017, 06:03 PM
Does anyone say the 80's was the Golden era for talent? I don't really hear anyone talk about how talented the 80's was, most in fact recognize it wasn't that talented. Usually they refer to the early 90's.
I always heard the mid 80s to early 90s. Mid 90s and beyond was shallow. Also read that the merger was when we should've expanded more

Hawkeye15
01-12-2017, 06:07 PM
I don't know if that's as true as it once was. Lots of gms and suits have agreed they are allowing more contact than when the rule was first introduced. The bigger change has been the amount of spacing we have and our understanding of the game. The 90s werent smart enough to take advantage

that is part of what I mean though. And you still can't check with the hand. Bigger guards have shifted to PG, with higher dribble, and more attacking ability. They have more freedom now on the perimeter than decades prior, and the spacing is just adding to the shift. Why wouldn't you put the perfect compliment of size/ball handling allowed as the lead ball handler?

Yeah, the 90s started spacing the floor, but they really didn't use it as a primary weapon, and many teams missed the boat entirely on that potential advantage.

tredigs
01-12-2017, 06:45 PM
Does anyone say the 80's was the Golden era for talent? I don't really hear anyone talk about how talented the 80's was, most in fact recognize it wasn't that talented. Usually they refer to the early 90's.

Yeah, late 80's/early 90's is considered "The Golden Era of Basketball". Never heard anyone say the 80's weren't talented. That was basketball's resurgence/boom from a popularity standpoint once Bird and Magic hit the scene. You had them + young/prime Jordan, older (but still potent) Dr. J and Kareem, Olajuwon, Moses and Karl Malone, Stockton, Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boys, Barkley, McHale, Nique, Clyde, English, etc. They were pretty loaded, definitely some fantastic basketball in that time. Though certainly dominated by the Lakers and Celtics and I do in fact have the current era over that time at this point.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2017, 06:54 PM
all I know is my 1986-87 fleer set of NBA cards is worth a ton of money

valade16
01-12-2017, 07:26 PM
Yeah, late 80's/early 90's is considered "The Golden Era of Basketball". Never heard anyone say the 80's weren't talented. That was basketball's resurgence/boom from a popularity standpoint once Bird and Magic hit the scene. You had them + young/prime Jordan, older (but still potent) Dr. J and Kareem, Olajuwon, Moses and Karl Malone, Stockton, Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boys, Barkley, McHale, Nique, Clyde, English, etc. They were pretty loaded, definitely some fantastic basketball in that time. Though certainly dominated by the Lakers and Celtics and I do in fact have the current era over that time at this point.

In the All-Time game chatzy PSK posted, I want to say adjusted total league RAPM, by year which supposedly gives a general idea of which years were more talented than others and the last couple years and the early 90's were at the top of the list.

As he did in the previous post, here was last year's NBA MVP vote:

Curry
Kawhi
James
Westbrook
KD
CP3
Dray
Lillard
Harden
Lowry

That is pretty stacked, but I don't know if it compares to this lol:

Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
David Robinson
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Clyde Drexler
Kevin Johnson
Dominique Wikins
Larry Bird
Terry Porter
Patrick Ewing
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
w/ Hakeem 18th and McHale 20th

That was 1991 and the NBA was pretty stacked lol.

Bartlee23
01-12-2017, 07:52 PM
The league now has the greatest amount of players with "athletic" talent than ever before. No era can ever claim that. However IMO it's a different game and nearly impossible to compare the eras. This is the first era we're seeing nearly every player in the line-up attempting 3 point shots and the low post/big man game is slowly becoming extinct.

The term "stars" can be used in the wrong context. I look at the league today and IMO as far as top 50 player list for example if you take out the obvious. Lebron,Curry,Dirk, CP3,etc I don't see anyone at this point in their career right now placing as a top 50 player of all time and Curry and CP3 IMO don't even crack my top 50. That is my opinion and I believe part of the reason why a lot of people who look at the league today and with the exception of Cleveland fans and Golden State fans look at the league and do think it's become quite boring with the soft play, no rivalries, everyone is friends, and most teams are not very good.

It all depends on what you like though. If you like guys attempting three point shots every other play and the basic fundamentals of the game not really there then you like the game. The athletic talent is through the roof but being athletic does not make you a great basketball player when you can't do something as basic as make a free throw.

When Kobe and Duncan retired the league lost two great talents and part of a dying breed of talent. The game changed and some people like it, some don't. I personally don't like the NBA right now and have a tough time even getting through a quarter of a game. I'm just waiting (like a lot of people) for the finals rematch which we already know who the teams will be. It's almost like watching a bad movie and knowing the outcome.

Again some people now LOVE the NBA... that's great !!!!!!!!! I personally don't but that's just my opinion which means nothing to anyone but myself. I miss rivalries and most people haven't even seen some of the older players play so you can't really judge something you didn't see or witness. In the 80's you could say you knew Boston and LA were going to end up in the finals but again it was the rivalry portion of it that was great. There was also a lot of smart players. The talent wasn't as good as today but the players that were great really were great. In the 90's depending on who's list you go by had 15-20 of the greatest NBA players of all time play in it. You can't say that today.

You can stick by the story of "people hold on to their childhood, favorite players,( enter your complaint here) etc" but the fact is the game is different. Some like it, some don't. To each their own.................

tredigs
01-12-2017, 09:04 PM
Ranking by # of top 50's is just silly imo. You don't know who will transcend and stand the test of time until well into a players career. Would like to see your top 50 list though.

Edit: @bartlee - Also the fundamental talk - specifically mentioning FTs - just feels like a talking point rather than a reality. Westbrook, Curry, Harden, CP3, AD, Durant, etc etc are not only amazingly skilled on top of their athletcism (or past athleticism), they all hit their foul shots at a high clip.

And while I understand you not liking 3's, the reality is that it's simply proven to provide a more efficient offense overall. Lowest percentage shot in the NBA is a midrange post up, that's just a reality, nostalgia be damned.

valade16
01-12-2017, 09:16 PM
Ranking by # of top 50's is just silly imo. You don't know who will transcend and stand the test of time until well into a players career. Would like to see your top 50 list though.

For reference only like 3 or 4 of the guys who got MVP consideration in 1991 would have been labeled a top 50 player ever at the time. Obviously many more of them subsequently managed to later.

Could be the case with today. I mean this year looks a lot better if AD, Towns, Embiid, Giannis all turn out to be Top 50 players as well.

tredigs
01-12-2017, 09:20 PM
For reference only like 3 or 4 of the guys who got MVP consideration in 1991 would have been labeled a top 50 player ever at the time. Obviously many more of them subsequently managed to later.

Could be the case with today. I mean this year looks a lot better if AD, Towns, Embiid, Giannis all turn out to be Top 50 players as well.

Right, exactly. Hindsight is 20/20.

Quinnsanity
01-12-2017, 09:58 PM
The other big flaw with the top-50: the guys who are actually on the list didn't have to compete with anyone who played after 1996. Re-do the top 50 now, having to consider the super obvious locks (LeBron, Duncan, Kobe, KG, Dirk and Durant), the contenders/depends on how the rest of their careers go (CP3, Westbrook, Curry, Harden) and the guys who are too young to tell but are obviously headed in the right direction (Kawhi, Davis, Giannis) and A LOT of guys are getting knocked off from the original list.

Just as a few examples, Dwyane Wade was better than Clyde Drexler. There's really no debate otherwise. But Clyde was playing when they arbitrarily decided to make that list, so he made it, and is now forever linked to the idea of being a "top-50 player." I didn't even list Dwight as someone under consideration for a top-50 spot, but I'd honestly take his career over Patrick Ewing's. Chris Paul is basically an Isiah Thomas clone... except he's a far better shooter and defender. The list goes on and on.

And honestly I was being really conservative with my list. Curry just had the best offensive season in NBA history. He's a top-50 player. I didn't mention Towns, KP, Embiid, Paul George or Jimmy Butler as candidates, but the first three clearly have the potential to get there if things break right and if the latter two keep things up and maybe wind up with better teammates I'd give each an outside shot. Like wouldn't you rather have George or Butler on your team than James Worthy? I would argue both are better on both sides of the ball.

So yea, the top-50 is nonsense.

Chronz
01-12-2017, 10:00 PM
that is part of what I mean though. And you still can't check with the hand. Bigger guards have shifted to PG, with higher dribble, and more attacking ability. They have more freedom now on the perimeter than decades prior, and the spacing is just adding to the shift. Why wouldn't you put the perfect compliment of size/ball handling allowed as the lead ball handler?

Yeah, the 90s started spacing the floor, but they really didn't use it as a primary weapon, and many teams missed the boat entirely on that potential advantage.
That's why handchecking is becoming irrelevant, execs agree that it's becoming a non issue. So why would you Attribute the rule changes over the intelligentsia?

Chronz
01-12-2017, 10:03 PM
For reference only like 3 or 4 of the guys who got MVP consideration in 1991 would have been labeled a top 50 player ever at the time. Obviously many more of them subsequently managed to later.

Could be the case with today. I mean this year looks a lot better if AD, Towns, Embiid, Giannis all turn out to be Top 50 players as well.
Peja was Once an mvp candidate and he doesn't sniff top 50 all time from the current era

Bartlee23
01-12-2017, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE=tredigs;31402474]Ranking by # of top 50's is just silly imo. You don't know who will transcend and stand the test of time until well into a players career. Would like to see your top 50 list though.

Edit: @bartlee - Also the fundamental talk - specifically mentioning FTs - just feels like a talking point rather than a reality. Westbrook, Curry, Harden, CP3, AD, Durant, etc etc are not only amazingly skilled on top of their athletcism (or past athleticism), they all hit their foul shots at a high clip.

As you can tell by my post amount and the years I've viewed this site it is not a major part of my life as others. In the time I have viewed this site "top 50" is a MAJOR subject discussed on it and gives great relevance to the subject. Nothing I stated did I say was fact. I could go into other areas but I don't have the time. (Don't really care either...lol) With the exception of CP3 who you listed one good year from Curry (followed by poor playoff series) does not make him an all time great. The rest of the players I put in a class of maybe Carmelo Anthony? Great player but I could list so many players if I was starting a team I'd take before them.

Also the "free throw " was brought up as an example. Listing players that shot at a high clip proves what? What about the other players? Also please quote where I said I "didn't like the three? " Like I stated "to each their own" you like the NBA now..... great I'm happy for you. I personally don't and for those reasons...... I'm out.

tredigs
01-12-2017, 11:01 PM
@ Bartlee (fix your qoutes and I can quote you), I'm on my phone but I can get you the year by year %'s for FT shooting and I assure you it is not like the leagues of past were more "fundamental" in this regard. I simply listed a litany of the top players since that is what we're focusing on.

Curry had "one good year"? Lmao, the GOAT AllTime shooter with a host of NBA shooting records (including best career all time FT+3pt shooter percentage wise) who happens to be b2b MVP including the 1st ever unanimous MVP. So essentially you said an MVP season (where he was the best player for the Warriors in the playoffs en route to their title was "not good"). His other AS season and another season breaking the 3pt record with advanced stats better than peak Isiah also "not good". Lol, noted.

lol, please
01-13-2017, 01:23 AM
The late 80's to mid 90's had massive superstar talent as well. But this is the highest breadth of talent since then (at the top and overall), and I do think that the league as a whole is stronger now than ever. Some of that has to do with the fact that we're borderline using cheat codes with the full proliferation of the 3pt shot and how to best use it. We have three "legend level" offenses from an efficiency standpoint right now (as in 3 of the top 10 all time), and it's not due to a lack of defense.
Which three teams have a top 10 all time offense this year?

tredigs
01-13-2017, 01:48 AM
Which three teams have a top 10 all time offense this year?

Could tell you but bbref braj. Learn.

ewing
01-13-2017, 07:30 AM
No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quinnsanity
01-13-2017, 11:14 AM
Which three teams have a top 10 all time offense this year?

As of right now, the Warriors have the best offense of all time, the Rockets are fourth and the Raptors are sixth, at least according to BBR. ESPN has the numbers slightly different. I tend to trust BBR when it comes to historical data though.

tredigs
01-13-2017, 04:59 PM
Also the "free throw " was brought up as an example. Listing players that shot at a high clip proves what? What about the other players? Also please quote where I said I "didn't like the three? " Like I stated "to each their own" you like the NBA now..... great I'm happy for you. I personally don't and for those reasons...... I'm out.
So I did check back, all seasons between now and the 80's are within 74%-77% Free Throws league wide. Last season was 75.%. There is no difference in the fundamentals of FT shooting between now and then, despite the clear athletic superiority of today's age. Fundamental-myth 1 debunked.

LBJ, Durant, Wade and Dirk are all easily top 35 All Time as is. CP3 and Curry have excellent arguments and likely already there. Harden, Westbrook and Kawhi Leonard are in their prime and possibly all on their way. We don't know what's to come of guys like AD, Giannis and Porzingis. Maybe they get there as well. Then you have Duncan, Nash, Kobe and Garnett who all recently retired and would be included as this generation in a "what era had the most top-50 players?" thread 20 years from now. An athletic freak of a player like John Wall who puts up 22/5/10 isn't even considered among the best of the best guards in the NBA right now. Others like DMC as a 7 foot big who averages > 25-10 every season and nobody ever considers him as a top 5 player in the current NBA.

The talent is incredibly deep both at the top and throughout the league in this era. Which makes sense seeing as the game is A) as popular/competitive as ever within the States and B) as popular/competitive as ever world-wide. There was essentially no scenario where players did not improve with both those facts being the case (nevermind the advantages that athletes have in the modern game via training/nutrition).

Chronz
01-13-2017, 05:12 PM
As of right now, the Warriors have the best offense of all time, the Rockets are fourth and the Raptors are sixth, at least according to BBR. ESPN has the numbers slightly different. I tend to trust BBR when it comes to historical data though.

By raw O-RTG that might be true but adjusted for league averages, do they really beat the Showtime Lakers?

tredigs
01-13-2017, 05:29 PM
By raw O-RTG that might be true but adjusted for league averages, do they really beat the Showtime Lakers?

Found a neat stat on BBREF with team O-rating (per 100 possessions still) adjusted for opponents defense. So Team Ortg/A. Best adjusted O ratings I found actually weren't showtime (they were right behind), but the 88 Celtics, the 91-92 Bulls, the 09-10 Suns, and now the 2016/17 Raps/Rockets/Warriors are all on pace to join that group (the only >116 Adjusted O ratings. Teams like the 15/16 Warriors and showtime were in the 115 range). Pretty wild that all three are there, even adjusted. And actually both the Raps and Rockets are slightly above the Warriors as of today's date.

Chronz
01-13-2017, 06:13 PM
Found a neat stat on BBREF with team O-rating (per 100 possessions still) adjusted for opponents defense. So Team Ortg/A. Best adjusted O ratings I found actually weren't showtime (they were right behind), but the 88 Celtics, the 91-92 Bulls, the 09-10 Suns, and now the 2016/17 Raps/Rockets/Warriors are all on pace to join that group (the only >116 Adjusted O ratings. Teams like the 15/16 Warriors and showtime were in the 115 range). Pretty wild that all three are there, even adjusted. And actually both the Raps and Rockets are slightly above the Warriors as of today's date.
Yeah but you still have to adjust for league averages for that stat as well. Dont you?

Like how much better than league average are they. Dubs are +6 (maybe it was 8) above league average. I'll check the numbers when Im home.

JasonJohnHorn
01-13-2017, 06:30 PM
Does anyone say the 80's was the Golden era for talent? I don't really hear anyone talk about how talented the 80's was, most in fact recognize it wasn't that talented. Usually they refer to the early 90's.

It was an immensely good league then. It's just hard to get recognition in a league dominated by the Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers.

Mark Aguirre was every bit as good as a guy like Melo. Same could be said of Adrian Dantley. And these were guys who struggled to get on the All-Star team. A lot of the guys who established themselves then (Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Stockton) are associated with the 90's because they had their deep playoff runs then, or championships, but they were killing it in the 80's too.

I mean, Dantley, over 15 years, averaged 24 points a game, and have four straight seasons at 30+. How many guys in the league now can do that? And he was a foot note in the NBA back then.

You had George Gervin. Tom Chambers had some great seasons. Jack Sikma. Michael Cage. Laimbeer. Sidney Moncrief. Terry Cummings. Alex English. Fat Lever. Derek Harper. Nique. Reggie Theus. Kiki. Kelly Tripucka. I say some of these names not because they are HOF guys. We know the HOF gus from the 80s: Magic, Kareem, Worhty, Thomas, Dumars, Bird, McHale, Parish, Moses, Dr. J., and guys like Jordan Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Hakeem, and Ewing, who each played some of their best seasons in the 80's, even if much of their success was in the 90's. These others guys, though really filled out the league and gave it a breadth of depth that the league has been trying to return to since expansion 'watered down' the league. I think the watering down is a bit much. There were some bad teams because they were just starting out, and now there are some bad teams because morons things tanking is a good idea, but the 80's was a golden age. It just wasn't an age where the internet and media/24hour new cycle was swarming the NBA with attention.

Guys like Ricky Green, Bernard King, Ralph Sampson, Byron Scott, Dennis Johnson, Michael Cooper, Walter Davis, Jeff Ruland, Andrew Toney, and Ricky Pierce, would likely all, if healthy, and brought up in this era of the game, would do very well today. Some of these gusy (Ruland and Toney) had shorter shelf lives, but that was the game back then.

The 80's had ballers. That is for sure. Lots of great talent.

The Bird/Magic era was a golden age, the the depth in the league made their wins all that more impressive. The guys don't have the name recognition that say, DeAndre Jordan has, but there were boat loads of great players.

It's just hard to say 'golden age' because the league has really seen almost a perpetual golden age, save the early 00's when the Spurs and Lakers were just fighting each other for titles and the rest of the league was just watching.

The 80's was amazing. The 90's was amazing. The post 2003 NBA has been stellar, even if the East has been a little weak. And you know... even the early 00's had some great moments and teams (Trailblazers and Kings were killin' it back then).

Hawkeye15
01-13-2017, 06:39 PM
It was an immensely good league then. It's just hard to get recognition in a league dominated by the Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers.

Mark Aguirre was every bit as good as a guy like Melo. Same could be said of Adrian Dantley. And these were guys who struggled to get on the All-Star team. A lot of the guys who established themselves then (Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Stockton) are associated with the 90's because they had their deep playoff runs then, or championships, but they were killing it in the 80's too.

I mean, Dantley, over 15 years, averaged 24 points a game, and have four straight seasons at 30+. How many guys in the league now can do that? And he was a foot note in the NBA back then.

You had George Gervin. Tom Chambers had some great seasons. Jack Sikma. Michael Cage. Laimbeer. Sidney Moncrief. Terry Cummings. Alex English. Fat Lever. Derek Harper. Nique. Reggie Theus. Kiki. Kelly Tripucka. I say some of these names not because they are HOF guys. We know the HOF gus from the 80s: Magic, Kareem, Worhty, Thomas, Dumars, Bird, McHale, Parish, Moses, Dr. J., and guys like Jordan Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Hakeem, and Ewing, who each played some of their best seasons in the 80's, even if much of their success was in the 90's. These others guys, though really filled out the league and gave it a breadth of depth that the league has been trying to return to since expansion 'watered down' the league. I think the watering down is a bit much. There were some bad teams because they were just starting out, and now there are some bad teams because morons things tanking is a good idea, but the 80's was a golden age. It just wasn't an age where the internet and media/24hour new cycle was swarming the NBA with attention.

Guys like Ricky Green, Bernard King, Ralph Sampson, Byron Scott, Dennis Johnson, Michael Cooper, Walter Davis, Jeff Ruland, Andrew Toney, and Ricky Pierce, would likely all, if healthy, and brought up in this era of the game, would do very well today. Some of these gusy (Ruland and Toney) had shorter shelf lives, but that was the game back then.

The 80's had ballers. That is for sure. Lots of great talent.

The Bird/Magic era was a golden age, the the depth in the league made their wins all that more impressive. The guys don't have the name recognition that say, DeAndre Jordan has, but there were boat loads of great players.

It's just hard to say 'golden age' because the league has really seen almost a perpetual golden age, save the early 00's when the Spurs and Lakers were just fighting each other for titles and the rest of the league was just watching.

The 80's was amazing. The 90's was amazing. The post 2003 NBA has been stellar, even if the East has been a little weak. And you know... even the early 00's had some great moments and teams (Trailblazers and Kings were killin' it back then).

The top end talent wasn't as good in the 80s, and we for sure know the depth of the league wasn't.

tredigs
01-13-2017, 07:07 PM
Yeah but you still have to adjust for league averages for that stat as well. Dont you?

Like how much better than league average are they. Dubs are +6 (maybe it was 8) above league average. I'll check the numbers when Im home.

Do you? I don't know. I mean it's adjusted for 100 possessions (the pace adjustment) and adjusted for defense. What you're looking for seems to be how much better at offense they are only in relation to the other teams that particular season. Or maybe I'm thinking about it wrong.

Without running the exact #'s, I can tell you that there were 6 teams over 110 Ortg/A in '87, and 17 under (3 under 105). With the lowest at ~102. This season there are 10 teams over 110, with 20 under (6 under 105), lowest is the Sixers at 101.6. Tough to say, seems fairly close, prob an edge to better offense overall this season with the top being as good as it is.

valade16
01-13-2017, 08:39 PM
What's crazy about the Raptors having such an efficient offense is that they simultaneously show that you don't need to be 3pt shooting team to win in the NBA today since them (and the Spurs) shoot among the lowest amount of 3's in the NBA, but they also show just how much more you have to shoot to even play in today's NBA.

The Raptors take 24 3's a game, the Spurs 22. That is 24th and 29th most in the NBA today. Go back just 10 years to 2007 and the most 3's by a team was 24. The most in 1997 was 22. The most in 1987 was 8!!

The proliferation of the 3pt shot has truly been crazy.

tredigs
01-13-2017, 08:56 PM
What's crazy about the Raptors having such an efficient offense is that they simultaneously show that you don't need to be 3pt shooting team to win in the NBA today since them (and the Spurs) shoot among the lowest amount of 3's in the NBA, but they also show just how much more you have to shoot to even play in today's NBA.

The Raptors take 24 3's a game, the Spurs 22. That is 24th and 29th most in the NBA today. Go back just 10 years to 2007 and the most 3's by a team was 24. The most in 1997 was 22. The most in 1987 was 8!!

The proliferation of the 3pt shot has truly been crazy.

But as you say, it is still a relatively huge amount of threes compared to past teams (who we are comparing them to). The reality is that every team has acknowledged the efficiency boost that the three gives them. They are also #1 and #2 in 3pt efficiency. Raps offense is so excellent for thr fact that they are not only the top 3pt shooting team percentage wise, but also #1 at getting to the line (amd #3 percentage wise once there). If they had an elite D they would be a juggernaut.

ewing
01-14-2017, 01:47 AM
the NBA is rally boring right now

Giannis94
01-14-2017, 11:57 AM
the NBA is rally boring right now
oh rly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja8r2SStJs

Quinnsanity
01-14-2017, 01:20 PM
oh rly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja8r2SStJs

Without clicking I'm 100% sure that's a Giannis clip.

warfelg
01-14-2017, 01:50 PM
Without clicking I'm 100% sure that's a Giannis clip.

It's Yiannis. The good Greek freak :laugh:

Chronz
01-14-2017, 02:25 PM
the NBA is rally boring right now

Its always been boring, especially during Ewing's reign of terror

JasonJohnHorn
01-14-2017, 05:57 PM
What's crazy about the Raptors having such an efficient offense is that they simultaneously show that you don't need to be 3pt shooting team to win in the regular seasontoday since them (and the Spurs) shoot among the lowest amount of 3's in the NBA, but they also show just how much more you have to shoot to even play in today's NBA.

Fixed that.

The regular season is the regular season. I'll give the Raps (who I love and support) credit, not for making the conference finals last year (which they almost coughed up a couple of times and should have got to easily with the path they had), but because they played such a tough series against the Cavs.

The Raptors put in 100% every night. They seldom take a night off. As a result, they do well in the regular season. But I don't think their current roster is capable of winning a title unless they went down a path in the playoffs that saw significant injuries to key teams. They are like George Karl's Nuggets, not in style of play, but in that they can rack up a significant number of wins the the regular season, but simply cannot compete with elite teams in a 7-game series.

That is perhaps harsher than I mean it to sound. I mean... they proved last year that they could 'compete' with Cleveland, and they were the champs. But when watching that series, I always felt like they were playing catch-up and that the Cavs could knock them out at any moment. They put up a good fight, better than I thought they would, and I was happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't feel like they were ever in the series.

But yeah... people are high on the 3-ball right now. You have a good point: a great defense and a mix of high percentage shots and moderate level of 3pt shooting can win games. I think the Spurs, who you mentioned, are a better example of that.

Greta post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

mia1619
01-14-2017, 06:26 PM
Fixed that.

The regular season is the regular season. I'll give the Raps (who I love and support) credit, not for making the conference finals last year (which they almost coughed up a couple of times and should have got to easily with the path they had), but because they played such a tough series against the Cavs.

The Raptors put in 100% every night. They seldom take a night off. As a result, they do well in the regular season. But I don't think their current roster is capable of winning a title unless they went down a path in the playoffs that saw significant injuries to key teams. They are like George Karl's Nuggets, not in style of play, but in that they can rack up a significant number of wins the the regular season, but simply cannot compete with elite teams in a 7-game series.

That is perhaps harsher than I mean it to sound. I mean... they proved last year that they could 'compete' with Cleveland, and they were the champs. But when watching that series, I always felt like they were playing catch-up and that the Cavs could knock them out at any moment. They put up a good fight, better than I thought they would, and I was happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't feel like they were ever in the series.

But yeah... people are high on the 3-ball right now. You have a good point: a great defense and a mix of high percentage shots and moderate level of 3pt shooting can win games. I think the Spurs, who you mentioned, are a better example of that.

Greta post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I somewhat agree with this. I was looking at efficiency stats a couple weeks ago for the first time all year and the way they were shooting the ball blew my mind. Not sure it is sustainable though. The raptors are good, maybe even great, but realistically, without a Cavs injury, they are still a piece away from being a title contender. Id love to see what they could have done if they were able to swing a trade for Korver and Millsap.

JasonJohnHorn
01-14-2017, 07:37 PM
I somewhat agree with this. I was looking at efficiency stats a couple weeks ago for the first time all year and the way they were shooting the ball blew my mind. Not sure it is sustainable though. The raptors are good, maybe even great, but realistically, without a Cavs injury, they are still a piece away from being a title contender. Id love to see what they could have done if they were able to swing a trade for Korver and Millsap.

In my mind, they would be infinitely better with Klay instead of DM;DR. I think he and Lowry would be great together, and he'd open things up for Lowry to attack the lane and let TO's big men work in the paint and kick it out.

But hey.... they are getting a lot of mileage out of DM;DR.

hugepatsfan
01-14-2017, 08:28 PM
I feel like there's a lot of "stars" but they get de-valued because of all the ones teaming up. I feel like there used to be more "one man shows" where a guy could carry a team relatively far. You always had the dominant teams at the top, but there was more opportunity to get to the conference finals/semis or whatever. Now, you need multiple stars to even get there because the starpower is so condensed at the top of the NBA. It just pushes them down for me because in the past I might have said wow this guy can take a team pretty far, now it's like well he needs to be #2 or #3 if you want to go anywhere.

NYKalltheway
01-15-2017, 06:09 AM
You can't really tell.

But truth is, when you're looking at guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem and later on Shaq, you sorta know immediately that they're amongst the best ever. And they coexisted (outside Shaq for the majority of them) in the same era.

Duncan has this vibe around him. For others Lebron and Kobe have it (not for me). Others felt and still feel it with Curry. But do you feel this way for at least 5-6 guys? Do you feel blessed to be able to watch at least 5-6 of these guys play? Because I loved say, John Stockton, as a player but I'd never say I'm blessed to have watched him. Yet I feel that if he played in this era he'd be dominating it when back then he was just a perennial playoff contender but not much more than that (except his twilight years with back-to-back finals appearances). There were many guys like Stockton back then, in various positions. Can you say the same now? Is there a "Stockton" or a "Mark Price" that's not considered the best in his position (remind you that Magic and Isiah were at their prime back then)?


It's always been about the media overhyping the modern players. The talent is there of course, but the mentality isn't. There aren't many Charles Barkleys out there. It's all about the money now, when you get it, you stop caring about the game and all you care about is more money and how to spend it. The old rivalries are dead, the passion is gone and when you play a physical game like basketball without this kind of ignition, well, there's no way it's a "Golden Era".
Talent-wise, it's unfair to some players of course, but that's part of the era categorization.

I do think that we're definitely in a moment of a change of eras. But this is something you realize in full, or appreciate, years later.

I don't recall back in the day people saying "we're in the golden era of the NBA", but that's me living abroad. All we knew was that the NBA was the best thing ever. Something that was challenged in the mid 2000s with the peak of European basketball over here. Now with the ongoing financial crisis and all that ****, it's been back to 'we cannot afford our best' and the kids have the same problems the post-2000 NBA talent has. It's all about the money and exposure for the majority. They want to go to the NBA for a quick paycheck and don't care about the game, then whine that they want to return to Europe.

Another reason why there's so many "stars" these days is the number of teams around. Before the 90s, there were less teams More concentrated teams as well. Give Kevin McHale his "own" team and he'd be a superstar. Now he's just remembered as a top PF that was Larry Bird's teammate. Same applies to Scottie Pippen. Give him his own team and no one remembers him as Jordan's sidekick but as one of the best SFs and a supestar, not just a great player that was a simply a star. People who lead their teams will always be overrated and people who are part of teams that have a genuine superstar will probably be undermined historically. And when you have two superstars in a team (ie Lakers with West and Baylor or Havlicek & Russell), historically you will punish one of the guys for no real reason, when back in the day they were considered equals. This "superstar" thing is a relatively recent thing, coming from the late 80s and the 90s. Sure people appreciated a Wilt and a Kareem among others, but the kind of exposure they got was limited compared to today's game. Jeremy Lin got more exposure than any of the older basketball stars.
So yeah, the media creates this star system and the 'star players'. And since it's more and more global and everything is faster, there's more players who get their "15 seconds of fame" than before. So "more" stars, but not really stars.

JasonJohnHorn
01-15-2017, 07:19 PM
You can't really tell.

But truth is, when you're looking at guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem and later on Shaq, you sorta know immediately that they're amongst the best ever. And they coexisted (outside Shaq for the majority of them) in the same era.

Duncan has this vibe around him. For others Lebron and Kobe have it (not for me). Others felt and still feel it with Curry. But do you feel this way for at least 5-6 guys? Do you feel blessed to be able to watch at least 5-6 of these guys play? Because I loved say, John Stockton, as a player but I'd never say I'm blessed to have watched him. Yet I feel that if he played in this era he'd be dominating it when back then he was just a perennial playoff contender but not much more than that (except his twilight years with back-to-back finals appearances). There were many guys like Stockton back then, in various positions. Can you say the same now? Is there a "Stockton" or a "Mark Price" that's not considered the best in his position (remind you that Magic and Isiah were at their prime back then)?

I understand the spirit of what you are saying here, but I have to say that I absolutely felt blessed watching Stockton. For half of his career, he broke records every time he stepped on the court with career assists and steals because he broke the record so early on in his career. His assist totals, and steals, and shooting... he was such a pleasure to watch. I felt: we will never see this again.

I would say more how you felt about, say, Kevin Johnson or Mark Price. Guys you knew were amazing, but were just stuck in a league with Magic and Thomas and Stockton and later Payton. I mean... Tim Hardaway looked amazing, but few people seem to recall just how stellar he was.

You had guys like Barkley, Malone, Jordan, and Hakeem, who five years into their careers, without having won a title, were already considered vocally to be among the best at their positions ever. And then you had a host of guys who were great, but just not that good.


But today is pretty special as well. We may see a shooting team as good as the Warriors again, because that is where the league is going, but they are the first, and it is doubtful we'll see a team so stacked again.

But look at the guard position. Westy is averaging a 3D! We haven't seen that in over 40 years! CP3 is among the best PGs to ever play the game. Curry is likely the best shooter the league has ever seen. LBJ and KD are rivaled only by Bird for being the best at their position. Klay and Harden make for some great shooting guard (or PGs now in Harden's case) and we get to watch the tail end of Wade's career. And this league has its own guys who may be great and be standing in the shadow of elite players, like Kyrie, Love, and Wall (among others).

The front court is lacking. We see potential in AD and raw talent in DMC, both of which we are waiting to see translate to wins. The 80's and 90's was certainly more stacked in Cs and PFs, but the game has changed, so we can't be too critical of that.


But in short, yes, there is easily a half a dozen guys I feel lucky to say I got to see play: CP3, LBJ, KD, Curry for sure. I think Towns and AD will be on that list, and I think there is legit reasons to feel fortunate to see the Warriors together and guys like Klay and Green playing with KD and Curry. And watchin Westy get a 3D season... that is up there. Not to mention Harden. He may have a hard time cracking the top-five at his position, but he'll be top-10.

This is a great league, and in addition to these guys, we got Blake Griffin, Butler, Paul George, Melo, Dirk winding up a great career, ect, ect, ect.

ewing
01-15-2017, 08:27 PM
oh rly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja8r2SStJs

yep

flea
01-15-2017, 10:54 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaha



....


hahahahahhahahahahahahaha

Good one OP.

JasonJohnHorn
01-16-2017, 11:58 PM
oh rly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja8r2SStJs

Classic Melo.

The way he give a soft and careless pass and start to run to get on defense, but then realizes that he can actually beat the guy to the other end but doesn't feel like jumping so he slows down and gives the guy an easy lane to dunk.

And people wonder why the Knicks are losing game.

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2017, 01:20 AM
Its a golden age for sure money/contract wise

players can avg 8ppg and 10rpg and get almost 90mill while 12 and 11 can get you 100mill plus

that's golden right there, don't get no more golden that that

Quinnsanity
01-17-2017, 01:43 AM
You can't really tell.

But truth is, when you're looking at guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem and later on Shaq, you sorta know immediately that they're amongst the best ever. And they coexisted (outside Shaq for the majority of them) in the same era.

Duncan has this vibe around him. For others Lebron and Kobe have it (not for me). Others felt and still feel it with Curry. But do you feel this way for at least 5-6 guys? Do you feel blessed to be able to watch at least 5-6 of these guys play? Because I loved say, John Stockton, as a player but I'd never say I'm blessed to have watched him. Yet I feel that if he played in this era he'd be dominating it when back then he was just a perennial playoff contender but not much more than that (except his twilight years with back-to-back finals appearances). There were many guys like Stockton back then, in various positions. Can you say the same now? Is there a "Stockton" or a "Mark Price" that's not considered the best in his position (remind you that Magic and Isiah were at their prime back then)?


It's always been about the media overhyping the modern players. The talent is there of course, but the mentality isn't. There aren't many Charles Barkleys out there. It's all about the money now, when you get it, you stop caring about the game and all you care about is more money and how to spend it. The old rivalries are dead, the passion is gone and when you play a physical game like basketball without this kind of ignition, well, there's no way it's a "Golden Era".
Talent-wise, it's unfair to some players of course, but that's part of the era categorization.

I do think that we're definitely in a moment of a change of eras. But this is something you realize in full, or appreciate, years later.

I don't recall back in the day people saying "we're in the golden era of the NBA", but that's me living abroad. All we knew was that the NBA was the best thing ever. Something that was challenged in the mid 2000s with the peak of European basketball over here. Now with the ongoing financial crisis and all that ****, it's been back to 'we cannot afford our best' and the kids have the same problems the post-2000 NBA talent has. It's all about the money and exposure for the majority. They want to go to the NBA for a quick paycheck and don't care about the game, then whine that they want to return to Europe.

Another reason why there's so many "stars" these days is the number of teams around. Before the 90s, there were less teams More concentrated teams as well. Give Kevin McHale his "own" team and he'd be a superstar. Now he's just remembered as a top PF that was Larry Bird's teammate. Same applies to Scottie Pippen. Give him his own team and no one remembers him as Jordan's sidekick but as one of the best SFs and a supestar, not just a great player that was a simply a star. People who lead their teams will always be overrated and people who are part of teams that have a genuine superstar will probably be undermined historically. And when you have two superstars in a team (ie Lakers with West and Baylor or Havlicek & Russell), historically you will punish one of the guys for no real reason, when back in the day they were considered equals. This "superstar" thing is a relatively recent thing, coming from the late 80s and the 90s. Sure people appreciated a Wilt and a Kareem among others, but the kind of exposure they got was limited compared to today's game. Jeremy Lin got more exposure than any of the older basketball stars.
So yeah, the media creates this star system and the 'star players'. And since it's more and more global and everything is faster, there's more players who get their "15 seconds of fame" than before. So "more" stars, but not really stars.

You've watched LeBron and came to literally any conclusion that wasn't "holy crap this guy is one of the best players ever?" Are you sure basketball is the sport for you?


Its a golden age for sure money/contract wise

players can avg 8ppg and 10rpg and get almost 90mill while 12 and 11 can get you 100mill plus

that's golden right there, don't get no more golden that that

I just... God why do I even bother anymore.

More-Than-Most
01-17-2017, 02:37 AM
oh rly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja8r2SStJs

i tried to post the Embiid eating Gia lunch as well but cant find it yet. NBA is fun as **** right now.


So all i have is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqREx5iJBo4

Giannis94
01-17-2017, 08:28 AM
i tried to post the Embiid eating Gia lunch as well but cant find it yet. NBA is fun as **** right now.


So all i have is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqREx5iJBo4
Joelle called MKE a shithole on IG. Shows how dumb he is considering he plays in Philly (I've been there fornan extended period of time so I cam say that).

Giannis94
01-17-2017, 08:36 AM
Also, social media has created Embiid more than any other player in the gme

ballallday
01-17-2017, 10:12 AM
the NBA is rally boring right now

Most of the people who bash the nba are 35+ and are getting old, stubborn and starting with that back in my day bs talk.

Could this be you?

Hawkeye15
01-17-2017, 10:37 AM
You can't really tell.

But truth is, when you're looking at guys like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem and later on Shaq, you sorta know immediately that they're amongst the best ever. And they coexisted (outside Shaq for the majority of them) in the same era.

Duncan has this vibe around him. For others Lebron and Kobe have it (not for me). Others felt and still feel it with Curry. But do you feel this way for at least 5-6 guys? Do you feel blessed to be able to watch at least 5-6 of these guys play? Because I loved say, John Stockton, as a player but I'd never say I'm blessed to have watched him. Yet I feel that if he played in this era he'd be dominating it when back then he was just a perennial playoff contender but not much more than that (except his twilight years with back-to-back finals appearances). There were many guys like Stockton back then, in various positions. Can you say the same now? Is there a "Stockton" or a "Mark Price" that's not considered the best in his position (remind you that Magic and Isiah were at their prime back then)?


It's always been about the media overhyping the modern players. The talent is there of course, but the mentality isn't. There aren't many Charles Barkleys out there. It's all about the money now, when you get it, you stop caring about the game and all you care about is more money and how to spend it. The old rivalries are dead, the passion is gone and when you play a physical game like basketball without this kind of ignition, well, there's no way it's a "Golden Era".
Talent-wise, it's unfair to some players of course, but that's part of the era categorization.

I do think that we're definitely in a moment of a change of eras. But this is something you realize in full, or appreciate, years later.

I don't recall back in the day people saying "we're in the golden era of the NBA", but that's me living abroad. All we knew was that the NBA was the best thing ever. Something that was challenged in the mid 2000s with the peak of European basketball over here. Now with the ongoing financial crisis and all that ****, it's been back to 'we cannot afford our best' and the kids have the same problems the post-2000 NBA talent has. It's all about the money and exposure for the majority. They want to go to the NBA for a quick paycheck and don't care about the game, then whine that they want to return to Europe.

Another reason why there's so many "stars" these days is the number of teams around. Before the 90s, there were less teams More concentrated teams as well. Give Kevin McHale his "own" team and he'd be a superstar. Now he's just remembered as a top PF that was Larry Bird's teammate. Same applies to Scottie Pippen. Give him his own team and no one remembers him as Jordan's sidekick but as one of the best SFs and a supestar, not just a great player that was a simply a star. People who lead their teams will always be overrated and people who are part of teams that have a genuine superstar will probably be undermined historically. And when you have two superstars in a team (ie Lakers with West and Baylor or Havlicek & Russell), historically you will punish one of the guys for no real reason, when back in the day they were considered equals. This "superstar" thing is a relatively recent thing, coming from the late 80s and the 90s. Sure people appreciated a Wilt and a Kareem among others, but the kind of exposure they got was limited compared to today's game. Jeremy Lin got more exposure than any of the older basketball stars.
So yeah, the media creates this star system and the 'star players'. And since it's more and more global and everything is faster, there's more players who get their "15 seconds of fame" than before. So "more" stars, but not really stars.

as per usual, you are going out of your way to make sure nobody new "has it". If you don't think LeBron is one of the top 2-3 players you have ever seen (I am going out on a limb, you can log onto the internet, therefore I assume you weren't alive to watch Wilt with coherent thought), you are simply sticking with the old days on purpose.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2017, 10:39 AM
Also, social media has created Embiid more than any other player in the gme

social media has indeed made everything more annoying today.

ewing
01-17-2017, 09:24 PM
Most of the people who bash the nba are 35+ and are getting old, stubborn and starting with that back in my day bs talk.

Could this be you?

I don't think so. I lost interest in the early 2000s and was brought back full force when the west was totally stacked. Now there are 2 really good teams and a lot of tankers. It makes for boring regular season sand pretty predictable post season as well. I suspect it will change again but right now I don't think the product is very good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NYKalltheway
01-18-2017, 03:42 AM
as per usual, you are going out of your way to make sure nobody new "has it". If you don't think LeBron is one of the top 2-3 players you have ever seen (I am going out on a limb, you can log onto the internet, therefore I assume you weren't alive to watch Wilt with coherent thought), you are simply sticking with the old days on purpose.

I think Anthony Davis 'has it'. I also like Towns and want to see his evolution. I like Adetokoumpo as well but like Lebron, I feel he's a product of a faulty system that developed in the mid 2000s.

I've no issues against young blood. I have issues against corruption and rigged games. Lebron gets away with not playing basketball most of the time (travelling, fouling, flopping and so on). I don't rate that. I'm not saying he's talentless, I'm saying he's overrated. I also don't rate Nowitzki as high as others do and he's not 'new'. I also don't rate Wilt Chamberlain that high and god, that's not a 'new' player at all.

The best 2-3 players I've seen:
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird

Lebron can pick their towels up if he wants to be in their company.

Shammyguy3
01-18-2017, 11:47 AM
How does Anthony Davis have it and Lebron doesn't?

NYKalltheway
01-18-2017, 03:23 PM
How does Anthony Davis have it and Lebron doesn't?

Skill vs athleticism.

Quinnsanity
01-18-2017, 04:36 PM
Skill vs athleticism.

What in the... huh... what are you... WHAT?!?!?

Shammyguy3
01-18-2017, 05:32 PM
Skill vs athleticism.

Neither of which Anthony Davis has Lebron beat in. Next reasoning?

Chronz
01-18-2017, 08:07 PM
Skill vs athleticism.

Wait, which one do you think is more athletic and which one do you think has more skill and why are you so wrong?

JasonJohnHorn
01-19-2017, 12:21 AM
I've no issues against young blood. I have issues against corruption and rigged games. Lebron gets away with not playing basketball most of the time (travelling, fouling, flopping and so on). .

If you think LBJ gets calls, you should have seen this guy in the 90's. Name of Michael Jordan. Dude could cut a guys head off, carry it down the court and dunk it, and they'd call a foul on the guy he decapitated.

Also... you aren't allows to complain about players travelling when your pick is Ewing. That dude had the three-step hook shot he always got away with ;-)

Come on dude.... I grew up watching ball in the late 80's and early 90's.... we all know the league was invested in ensuring Jordan and the Bulls did well... more than once at the expense of the Knicks.

JasonJohnHorn
01-19-2017, 12:22 AM
Wait, which one do you think is more athletic and which one do you think has more skill and why are you so wrong?

Right?

NYKalltheway
01-19-2017, 04:00 AM
If you think LBJ gets calls, you should have seen this guy in the 90's. Name of Michael Jordan. Dude could cut a guys head off, carry it down the court and dunk it, and they'd call a foul on the guy he decapitated.

Also... you aren't allows to complain about players travelling when your pick is Ewing. That dude had the three-step hook shot he always got away with ;-)

Come on dude.... I grew up watching ball in the late 80's and early 90's.... we all know the league was invested in ensuring Jordan and the Bulls did well... more than once at the expense of the Knicks.

Travelling has been an issue in the NBA since the David Stern era. Prior to that it was normal to call travelling and occassionally the refs would miss a few.

I'm also not going to disagree on the MJ statement. The guy got too much favor but in the 80s he got beat up and barely got calls for that. Today that's flagrant + ejection at least for half of those incidents.

But MJ was skillful. Kobe was also skillful, not as much, tried to emulate him too much, but the guy had skill.

Lebron didn't develop a (basic) post game until his late 20s. Most NBA legends have that before getting into the league, and no, college does not matter that much here. It does polish it but it does not create it. It's not like shooting which can improve with a lot of effort, posting up and the pivot and all that are fundamental basketball skills that a player learns when he picks up a ball the first few times (first is shooting and the shooting form but that can change over time until you get it the way you feel it's best), not when he gets paid [millions] to play basketball.

Patrick Ewing has had a few major incidents of that three-step dribble but it wasn't really something he did all the time. He just got away with it more times than not. But as I said, it's typical in the modern NBA. Charles Barkley got away with travelling a few times, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, Gary Payton and many others. That's how the commission wants the game to be played. And now they want to eliminate as much fundamental skills as possible and replace it with pure athleticism. We've been witnessing this in the last decade. The lane is clear now for a guard/forward to go for a drive if he has the strength and athletic ability to do so. Before that, you needed skill to be able to penetrate the paint. And before might mean back in the 70s or 90s, but that's also an issue with how teams played. The NBA dictated a fast tempo to bring scores higher as they felt it attracted more fans, so you had a faster pace of the game to sell more tickets and tv rights. And when teams started to play for the win and not for the $, the NBA changed the rules to force them to open up.
Should players be penalized for having a ridiculous commission in the NBA? Definitely not. But when players are being rewarded for the same reason, people jump on the hype train instead of putting things into context. Lebron James in another era would not be this guy that some people drool over. In fact, even in this era, he'd probably have no rings if he stayed in Cleveland or didn't team up with a top 3 and top 15 player when the next teams barely had two top 20 players.


You're saying that the NBA invested in MJ. That's true. But the guy was a winner and he proved it. And he struggled a lot to win and faced teams of similar talent.
The same happened with Lebron. The NBA invested MUCH MORE on him because the superstar era was dying. And he and they failed. The guy was a loser, not as talented as everyone hoped he'd be and they still had to push him to become 'the king' as he proclaimed himself to be when entering the league. He's only a "winner" and a positive player in people's minds now because he teamed up in Miami with the other guys and then decided to return and win a ring with the semi-stacked Cavs who got all the #1 picks in the world since he was gone. Yeah, the NBA hasn't invested anything in creating Lebron's image, lol.