What makes a "super team" vs. just a great team?

[NYKalltheway]

He is literally not a good enough scorer to carry a team, his post game was good but not great enough to be an offensive focal point and his shooting was not nearly good enough to make up for it. Additionally, he is not an upper level defensive anchor. He is good both offensively and defensively, but he is not carry a team good in either category.

Also, you said he had to compete against the likes of Mark Eaton for All-Star games, that in and of itself should tell you he wouldn't be MVP caliber today. Mark Eaton would be borderline unplayable today. He is not only a zero on offense, he actively hurts it (it's actually insane that a 7'4" man like him can be so bad at cleaning up shots around the basket and playing the dunkers position as a lob threat).

Divac is in general underrated, that I agree with, and I do think his skillset is better suited for the modern game. But he would not be scoring 27 a night like Jokic or Embiid, nor would he be single handedly locking down the paint like Gobert. He would be the best of the non-elite C's in the league, and nowhere near an MVP caliber player.

Conversely, Jokic on those Lakers teams would definitely be a clash in terms of styles as Jokic doesn't love to run the floor like the Showtime Lakers, but he would fit perfectly into Kareem's later role of half-court centerpiece, and just like Kareem he'd take the ball in the high-post. This version of Jokic is on the 91 Lakers they very likely beat the Bulls and win it all.

Jokic would have be a top tier talent in any era in the league.

Your only evidence on Divac not being able to do that is him not being able to do it against Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo and all of those great bigs in an era where they were allowed to clog the paint. What's your evidence that Jokic could pull it off?

You're basically saying that Jokic must be better because he can score a lot against Embiid and Towns with favorable rules, yet you're saying Divac is not better because he couldn't do that against all those guys that would scare the hell out of the league today when they could beat you up.

I'll clue you in. Neither could Jokic. Can you prove he could? I asked you before to do a basic comparison between the 2 players, one was considered just good, the other is considered elite. You tell me where Jokic beats Divac and by what margin in those aspects.



This is why you cannot be trusted to talk basketball, you emphasize everything on a bunch of numbers and you don't care how they come. Who cares if Jokic can score 27 a night today?

Can you tell me how many points Jokic scores on international tournaments and his overall numbers since that's your only concern?

You won't and you'll try to change the subject again, so I will.
You will also not realize that Divac was always surrounded by great scorers, so him scoring was never a big necessity. Jokic is usually the 2nd option on his NT, whereas Divac was 3rd to 5th, depending on the period.

Unfortunately the data is limited for Divac's era, but we have the basic ones.

Nikola Jokic, age 21, in the 2016 Olympics on a silver medal run:
22.5 minutes per game
9.1 points per game
on 50% 2 point shooting
and 30% 3 point shooting
6.1 rebounds
0.6 blocks
2.4 assists
1.5 steals
1.1 turnovers
2.6 fouls
Plus/Minus: -0.1 per game
Efficiency average (PIR*) 14.5 (15th overall)

Vlade Divac, age 20, in the 1988 Olympics on a silver medal run:
22.3 minutes per game
12 points per game
on 57.8% shooting
7.0 rebounds per game
1.0 assist per game
1.6 steals per game
1.1 blocks per game
1.4 turnovers per game
1.9 fouls per game

This is the only tournament there's enough data when both were at a similar age, with the exact same team result. Apart from assists, Divac wins on everything else and slightly loses on having more turnovers.

Divac in 1987, aged 19, Eurobasket, won bronze:
13.5 points per game

Divac in 1989, age 21, Eurobasket, won the gold:
9.4 points per game

Divac in 1990, age 22, World Championship, won the gold:
8.5 points per game

Divac in 1991, age 23 Eurobasket, won the gold:
12 points per game

Divac in 1995, age 27 Eurobasket, won the gold:
9 points per game
6.3 rebounds per game
2.2 assists per game

Divac in 1996, age 28 Olympics, on a silver medal run:
22.9 minutes per game
6.6 points per game
6.2 rebounds per game
2.4 assists per game
41% shooting
2.3 fouls per game
0.1 blocks per game
1.6 turnovers per game
1.4 steals per game


Divac in 1999, age 31, Eurobasket, bronze medal:
10.7 points per game
4.3 rebounds per game
2.2 assists per game

Divac in 2002, age 34, World Championship, won gold:
8.7 points per game
5.3 rebounds per game
2.3 assists per game

Divac was also part of the 1986 World's team as an 18 year old, played very little but averaged 4.6 points per game. He averaged 13 points per game at youth level in the there big tournaments he played in the 80s.

Jokic only participated in the 2016 Olympics and the 2019 World's. He also played as a youth player in the 2013 Under 19s world, scoring 7 points per game, with 5 rebounds and 1.5 assists. Jokic was 18 at the time.

In 2019, Jokic's team reached the 5th place which typically means they lost in the Quarters and then played two rather easier fixtures, but in 2019 they happened to beat the USA team for the 5th place playin, which makes this awkward.
Either way, Jokic at age 24 in the world's in a rather bad team [as opposed to Divac's teams and in terms of results] had:
22.6 minutes per game
11.5 points per game
7.5 rebounds per game
4.8 assists per game
0.3 steals per game
0.5 blocks per game
2.9 turnovers per game
2.3 fouls per game

He ranked 63rd in points scored per game in that tournament.



Obviously more information on team and peer stats is needed, but on face value it doesn't seem like Jokic is any dominant. Unless adding stats on a bad team is something you like today?
Future will tell us more on how Jokic does at the international stage.

And you're in the minority that thinks that the level is higher, so that's pretty much the only thing you have here, which no sane international basketball subscribes to. There's a reason why an Argentina team with pretty much 6 players and an average age of 32 reached the final in 2019. Basketball is in a poor state, they're great veterans and know how to play, but after them the gap in quality will appear wider.


PIR: (Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks + Fouls Drawn) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free Throws + Turnovers + Shots Rejected + Fouls Committed).


I won't bother with the youth level stuff, players develop at different ages. And it'll be unfair.


The only thing that will make Jokic surpass Divac overall is not his talent. He's a talented player obviously, but apart from playing in an era that favors him due to a bunch of reasons, he's also not - until this point - a person like Divac. Vlade broke down after his first injury and started drinking and smoking and he never took his career very seriously. One thing you can argue about all professional sports these days is that the money is too enticing and a lot of players are strictly professional and look out for themselves in order to win the next big contract. This is not something older generations looked for, since the money was significant but not that many were earning as much. Now even a scrub can earn something like $6m a year. But we do have cases where players cannot handle expectations and eventually sit on the money, which is a business side effect that's been around for 20-25 years or so.

[NYKalltheway]

Well you are using a wide swath of time with the players listed considering all weren't in their prime or top players at the same time. As an example, Wilkins last year over 20 PPG was 94, which was GP's first All-Star year. They were not the same era. IT, Magic, Bird, and Kareem were all retired or close to it by the time Reggie, GP, or D-Rob were considered top players.

I also do not buy the idea that the top talent doesn't compare to earlier periods. The depth of top talent is insane. Bron, despite your opinion, will go down as in the conversation for the very best ever. Curry is by far the greatest shooter to ever play in the league. KD would be among the best scorers of any era. Guys like Lillard will be overlooked historically due to how much talent is in the league today, but he is amazing. Kawhi has dampened his historical standing but talentwise he's among the better players to ever come along. Then you have great players like Embiid, AD, CP3, Harden, etc.

And all those players are before we even get to Giannis, Luka, and Jokic. Which again, are only 3 players hitting the upper level, and the reason is because they are that good.

The problem is you are basing it on a faulty premise: that Luka, Giannis, and Jokic are not any better than the Divac's, Radja's, Kukoc's, etc. They are. That is why they're doing better, and would if they played in the 90's.

You really think Giannis would do worse in a league that didn't emphasize outside shooting as much? C'mon.

I talked about an Age, not an era. I understand that they sound the same, but the Golden Age of basketball is considered to be the 80s and 90s (yet I've said many times my personal favorite era in terms of basketball style was the early 2000s). Moses Malone didn't get to block Allen Iverson, but they're part of the same Age.
An era is different, it's shorter.

The 2010s for example have 2, and some could argue a 3rd that's touching both.

1st era: The Big Three era. Boston in 2008, then 2010 Lebron decision, Heat superteam. Essentially it was the whole league against this team. In the meanwhile, Lakers tried to replicate something like the Celtics with Kobe, Nash and Dwight.

2nd era: Superteam era. Lebron goes back to Cleveland to form another 'big three', Warriors motion offense takes them to new heights and then boom, Durant joins, breaks the league and almost everyone considered for MVP moves around teams with rival MVP candidates.

The 3rd part is the Jump Shot/Efficiency frenzy/Three point situation where teams would change their style to jack up shots because "it's better to shoot threes". This happened sometime after the 2nd era began, which is why it can be considered as a new one, but I wouldn't call it an era unless it keeps going for another 5 years. It's more of a trend and trends die when a new one is set.


They're all part of the 'New Age', which coincided, or initiated, by the rule changes of the period after the "dead ball era" (late 90s to mid 2000s). The dead ball era is pretty much a transition from the Golden Age to the New Age.



Your argument that Luka (and all others) is better than players of the 90s because he's doing better today than the other guys were doing in the 90s is expressing everything that is wrong with the new age of NBA fans. Luka may well be better than all of these guys, but it's not because "he does better". He does better because it's easier now. He even said it as an 18 year old rookie. Kobe said it years back, Europeans learn the game better and it's tougher over there. Coaches and many other players say it. Your entire argument is that player A today has better stats than Player B yesterday, hence Player A > Player B. That's stupid. Sorry, but there is no other word in the English language to describe what you're saying. You're doing everything wrong when your mind works this way.

It's one thing to say you cannot compare across eras, it's another to say that it's all a level playing field and stats is all that matters. I sincerely wish you stuck to the first premise because the hill you want to die on looks very ridiculous from this side of the ocean.

[beasted86]

You're working this backwards.

The question is not whether Divac deserved to be an all star. He did not. You just read (I hope) a post that said that Divac was behind at least 5 other centers during his time.


The question is whether the same Divac would have been more effective in this era, earning more all star appearances and even MVP considerations. The answer is yes. A definitive yes.

And Nikola Jokic would be one of the first to say so.

How many all star appearances would Jokic have if there were 2 spots and Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson were around?

Yes. We absolutely need to work your logic backwards. Stay with me for a moment. We aligned here:

A) We're in agreement that Divac should not have been an all-star in his own time.

You did not make it clear whether you also agree that:

B) Divac was rarely the best player on his own team. Teams that DID have deserved all-stars on them at times.

Working under the assumption you do agree with point B, tying all applied logic together it must also mean that:

C) Divac was not deserving of all-star status in his own era, and wasn't the best player on his own teams... Teams that had all-stars on them. With Divac playing in the current era where 'it is easier to be effective' he could be as good or possibly better than the reigning MVP. So by means of deduction, the deserving all-star players that were present on Divac's team who were clearly better players than him during his own era should also see a linear increase in effectiveness advantage in this current era. This means that a player like Cedric Ceballos would also be an MVP caliber in today's league. Chris Weber would easily be a multiple time MVP.

Now feel free to show me how I misquoted you or went wrong in applying your logic.

[valade16]

Your only evidence on Divac not being able to do that is him not being able to do it against Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo and all of those great bigs in an era where they were allowed to clog the paint. What's your evidence that Jokic could pull it off?

You're basically saying that Jokic must be better because he can score a lot against Embiid and Towns with favorable rules, yet you're saying Divac is not better because he couldn't do that against all those guys that would scare the hell out of the league today when they could beat you up.

No it isn't. Because Vlade wasn't able to do it after Hakeem, Ewing, D-Rob, Zo, etc. all left. But even then, he couldn't do it even when up against the worst C's of the time. Divac's career high in points in a game is 34, which he accomplished against the Phoenix Suns in 2001 in a game in which they literally didn't even start a Center. He also had 32 points against the great Charles Shackleford.

When he was asked to be a primary scorer, he couldn't touch Jokic's output. Against the worst centers, he couldn't touch Jokic's output.

Now, let's look at the opposite side. What's the evidence Jokic could pull it off?

First off, as I said: Jokic is a better shooter literally everywhere on the floor. Why do you keep ignoring this? Unless your argument is Divac was so stifled by 90s/00s C's he was never open or Jokic is never contested, it is irrefutable Jokic is a better shooter than Divac.

But beyond that, Jokic averages 21 PPG against Embiid and 20 PPG against Gobert all-time. So he literally averages more against the top C's of this era than Divac ever averaged. Jokic has dropped 47 and 35 points on Gobert before. So he has scored more points than Divac ever did against the likes of Charles Shackleford, except he did it to Rudy Gobert.

I'll clue you in. Neither could Jokic. Can you prove he could? I asked you before to do a basic comparison between the 2 players, one was considered just good, the other is considered elite. You tell me where Jokic beats Divac and by what margin in those aspects.

This is why you cannot be trusted to talk basketball, you emphasize everything on a bunch of numbers and you don't care how they come. Who cares if Jokic can score 27 a night today?

I did a basic comparison on a number of the areas you listed out, you flat out ignored them. You keep saying I can't be trusted to talk basketball but every time I do you ignore it.

It's very obvious you don't watch the NBA or Jokic, which is unsurprising from someone who hates them, But it's very obvious based on your continued characterization that Jokic wouldn't be able to handle the physicality of the 90's. He is immensely physical, that is literally when he is at his best. Saying he isn't physical is like saying Jordan is unathletic, it just shows a fundamental ignorance to the player.

Can you tell me how many points Jokic scores on international tournaments and his overall numbers since that's your only concern?

You won't and you'll try to change the subject again, so I will.
You will also not realize that Divac was always surrounded by great scorers, so him scoring was never a big necessity. Jokic is usually the 2nd option on his NT, whereas Divac was 3rd to 5th, depending on the period.

Unfortunately the data is limited for Divac's era, but we have the basic ones.

Nikola Jokic, age 21, in the 2016 Olympics on a silver medal run:
22.5 minutes per game
9.1 points per game
on 50% 2 point shooting
and 30% 3 point shooting
6.1 rebounds
0.6 blocks
2.4 assists
1.5 steals
1.1 turnovers
2.6 fouls
Plus/Minus: -0.1 per game
Efficiency average (PIR*) 14.5 (15th overall)

Vlade Divac, age 20, in the 1988 Olympics on a silver medal run:
22.3 minutes per game
12 points per game
on 57.8% shooting
7.0 rebounds per game
1.0 assist per game
1.6 steals per game
1.1 blocks per game
1.4 turnovers per game
1.9 fouls per game

This is the only tournament there's enough data when both were at a similar age, with the exact same team result. Apart from assists, Divac wins on everything else and slightly loses on having more turnovers.

Divac in 1987, aged 19, Eurobasket, won bronze:
13.5 points per game

Divac in 1989, age 21, Eurobasket, won the gold:
9.4 points per game

Divac in 1990, age 22, World Championship, won the gold:
8.5 points per game

Divac in 1991, age 23 Eurobasket, won the gold:
12 points per game

Divac in 1995, age 27 Eurobasket, won the gold:
9 points per game
6.3 rebounds per game
2.2 assists per game

Divac in 1996, age 28 Olympics, on a silver medal run:
22.9 minutes per game
6.6 points per game
6.2 rebounds per game
2.4 assists per game
41% shooting
2.3 fouls per game
0.1 blocks per game
1.6 turnovers per game
1.4 steals per game


Divac in 1999, age 31, Eurobasket, bronze medal:
10.7 points per game
4.3 rebounds per game
2.2 assists per game

Divac in 2002, age 34, World Championship, won gold:
8.7 points per game
5.3 rebounds per game
2.3 assists per game

Divac was also part of the 1986 World's team as an 18 year old, played very little but averaged 4.6 points per game. He averaged 13 points per game at youth level in the there big tournaments he played in the 80s.

Jokic only participated in the 2016 Olympics and the 2019 World's. He also played as a youth player in the 2013 Under 19s world, scoring 7 points per game, with 5 rebounds and 1.5 assists. Jokic was 18 at the time.

In 2019, Jokic's team reached the 5th place which typically means they lost in the Quarters and then played two rather easier fixtures, but in 2019 they happened to beat the USA team for the 5th place playin, which makes this awkward.
Either way, Jokic at age 24 in the world's in a rather bad team [as opposed to Divac's teams and in terms of results] had:
22.6 minutes per game
11.5 points per game
7.5 rebounds per game
4.8 assists per game
0.3 steals per game
0.5 blocks per game
2.9 turnovers per game
2.3 fouls per game

He ranked 63rd in points scored per game in that tournament.

Obviously more information on team and peer stats is needed, but on face value it doesn't seem like Jokic is any dominant. Unless adding stats on a bad team is something you like today?
Future will tell us more on how Jokic does at the international stage.

First, there is a certain irony in saying I can't talk basketball because I use numbers and then listing off a bunch of numbers.

Second, Divac's numbers look pretty much the exact same, maybe slightly better in his 88 run than 21 year old Jokic, but 21 year old Divac may very well have been better than 21 Jokic, because 21 year old Jokic is nowhere near 26 year old Jokic as a player.

But beyond that, it doesn't really seem like Divac dominated. either. But you know who did dominate in 2019? Bogdan Bogdanovic, who had the highest PPG of the entire tournament. He is a good but not great NBA player. So how was he able to dominate in International competition? Ironically, he took a boatload of 3's and made them. Actually, if you look at the top scorers of that tournament, none were big guys and most took a ton of 3's. So it seems the Euro game and international competition is even more reliant on 3's than the NBA...

Heck, I just looked at the 88 Olympics and you know who the highest scorers were? Non-bigs who took a boatload of 3's. Oscar Schmidt scored an insane 42 PPG that tournament while taking 8 3's a game. Next were Andrew Gaze, Lee Chong-Hui, and Zhang Youngjun, who all took 6+ 3's a game. In 1988. When NBA teams were taking an average of 5 3's a game.

It seems the international game is a lot more conducive to 3's considering all the highest scorer's are also high volume 3 point shooters...

And you're in the minority that thinks that the level is higher, so that's pretty much the only thing you have here, which no sane international basketball subscribes to. There's a reason why an Argentina team with pretty much 6 players and an average age of 32 reached the final in 2019. Basketball is in a poor state, they're great veterans and know how to play, but after them the gap in quality will appear wider.


PIR: (Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks + Fouls Drawn) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free Throws + Turnovers + Shots Rejected + Fouls Committed).

I won't bother with the youth level stuff, players develop at different ages. And it'll be unfair.

Find me these International Basketball aficionados who believe the depth of talent was greater in the 90's, or that Luka, Giannis and Jokic are not as good as their 90's counterparts.

The only thing that will make Jokic surpass Divac overall is not his talent. He's a talented player obviously, but apart from playing in an era that favors him due to a bunch of reasons, he's also not - until this point - a person like Divac. Vlade broke down after his first injury and started drinking and smoking and he never took his career very seriously. One thing you can argue about all professional sports these days is that the money is too enticing and a lot of players are strictly professional and look out for themselves in order to win the next big contract. This is not something older generations looked for, since the money was significant but not that many were earning as much. Now even a scrub can earn something like $6m a year. But we do have cases where players cannot handle expectations and eventually sit on the money, which is a business side effect that's been around for 20-25 years or so.

Talentwise Jokic has already surpassed Divac.

[beasted86]

I think I'm just going to let the argument rest because there's no point in continuing it. There's no fun in debating an indefensible statement like Divac is better than Jokic.

There were tons of players better than Divac during his entire prime. He's basically saying that all those players would be as good as an MVP in today's league.

If that's not era (or "Age") bias, I'm not sure what is.

[valade16]

I talked about an Age, not an era. I understand that they sound the same, but the Golden Age of basketball is considered to be the 80s and 90s (yet I've said many times my personal favorite era in terms of basketball style was the early 2000s). Moses Malone didn't get to block Allen Iverson, but they're part of the same Age.
An era is different, it's shorter.

The 2010s for example have 2, and some could argue a 3rd that's touching both.

1st era: The Big Three era. Boston in 2008, then 2010 Lebron decision, Heat superteam. Essentially it was the whole league against this team. In the meanwhile, Lakers tried to replicate something like the Celtics with Kobe, Nash and Dwight.

2nd era: Superteam era. Lebron goes back to Cleveland to form another 'big three', Warriors motion offense takes them to new heights and then boom, Durant joins, breaks the league and almost everyone considered for MVP moves around teams with rival MVP candidates.

The 3rd part is the Jump Shot/Efficiency frenzy/Three point situation where teams would change their style to jack up shots because "it's better to shoot threes". This happened sometime after the 2nd era began, which is why it can be considered as a new one, but I wouldn't call it an era unless it keeps going for another 5 years. It's more of a trend and trends die when a new one is set.


They're all part of the 'New Age', which coincided, or initiated, by the rule changes of the period after the "dead ball era" (late 90s to mid 2000s). The dead ball era is pretty much a transition from the Golden Age to the New Age.

OK if you want to use age instead of era to elongate it (which seems odd to me) then when discussing the current age we can add a ton more top level players like Wade, Nash, Kobe, Dirk, etc. and there's near as much talent in this age as any other...

Your argument that Luka (and all others) is better than players of the 90s because he's doing better today than the other guys were doing in the 90s is expressing everything that is wrong with the new age of NBA fans. Luka may well be better than all of these guys, but it's not because "he does better". He does better because it's easier now. He even said it as an 18 year old rookie. Kobe said it years back, Europeans learn the game better and it's tougher over there. Coaches and many other players say it. Your entire argument is that player A today has better stats than Player B yesterday, hence Player A > Player B. That's stupid. Sorry, but there is no other word in the English language to describe what you're saying. You're doing everything wrong when your mind works this way.

It's one thing to say you cannot compare across eras, it's another to say that it's all a level playing field and stats is all that matters. I sincerely wish you stuck to the first premise because the hill you want to die on looks very ridiculous from this side of the ocean.

Except that is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying the exact opposite: the reason Luka is doing better today and would do better in the 90's is because he's better.

I literally gave you a myriad of reasons Jokic is better beyond he does better in this era and you flat out ignored them. For all your talk of me ignoring things and making up arguments you are the worst transgressor here.

Anything anyone says gets reduced to "all your doing is saying his stats are better today than theirs were then so he's better" when I am most definitely not saying that. You have this caricature of modern NBA fans and you just superimpose what you think they believe to every argument.

I'M NOT EVEN A NEW AGE NBA FAN. My era is literally your favorite era: the late 90's to early 00's. That was my era of basketball. My favorite players of all-time are Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. The only jerseys I own are Allan Houston, Kevin Garnett, Hakeem Olajuwon and Rasheed Wallace.

You are literally arguing against fictional points from a fictional person.

That is stupid. Sorry, but there is no other word in the English language to describe what you're saying. You're doing everything wrong when your mind works this way.

I most certainly don't believe stats are all that matters. Every time I try to bring up why Jokic and Luka are literally better players from a fundamental and skill aspect, you ignore it. Then claim I only use stats.

So whatever you think looks ridiculous from your side of the ocean is pretty irrelevant to me. You literally think Divac > Jokic, and Nique > Bron. That looks ridiculous from any side of the ocean and I strongly suspect even Europeans would think your takes are stupid.

[valade16]

I think I'm just going to let the argument rest because there's no point in continuing it. There's no fun in debating an indefensible statement like Divac is better than Jokic.

There were tons of players better than Divac during his entire prime. He's basically saying that all those players would be as good as an MVP in today's league.

If that's not era (or "Age") bias, I'm not sure what is.

Yep, it's just insanity. Vlade Divac would be MVP. Larry Johnson would be MVP. Toni Kukoc would be MVP.

I have never seen someone cling to their childhood nostalgia as hard as him. It's the strongest, most concentrated bias I have ever seen.

And what's crazy is, Divac > Jokic isn't even his craziest take. He also thinks Dominique Wilkins is better than LeBron James.

[NYKalltheway]

You are literally arguing against fictional points from a fictional person.

This is rich coming from you

[valade16]

This is rich coming from you

I will reiterate:

For all your talk of me ignoring things and making up arguments you are the worst transgressor here.

[smith&wesson]

What are you basing this on? Which skillset is Divac lacking that wouldn't make him a franchise player in today's NBA?

Would Jokic be a franchise player if he was playing with Magic and Worthy?

Would he have been a franchise player if his positional rivals were Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning?

Was Mutombo a franchise player btw?

I asked Valade before about 15 characteristics between the two players, the same applies to you and everyone else. Please rate the two. At their prime, if you haven't seen Vlade before he was 30 don't even bother.

Not skillset- talent! Divac was not a corner stone then, he wouldn’t be today either. Size him up with someone like Embiid and Joel would eat his food every time.

And bringing up guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson is a moot point because they were simply better than Divac. Cmon man is this even a conversation?

[NYKalltheway]

Yes. We absolutely need to work your logic backwards. Stay with me for a moment. We aligned here:

A) We're in agreement that Divac should not have been an all-star in his own time.

You did not make it clear whether you also agree that:

B) Divac was rarely the best player on his own team. Teams that DID have deserved all-stars on them at times.

Working under the assumption you do agree with point B, tying all applied logic together it must also mean that:

C) Divac was not deserving of all-star status in his own era, and wasn't the best player on his own teams... Teams that had all-stars on them. With Divac playing in the current era where 'it is easier to be effective' he could be as good or possibly better than the reigning MVP. So by means of deduction, the deserving all-star players that were present on Divac's team who were clearly better players than him during his own era should also see a linear increase in effectiveness advantage in this current era. This means that a player like Cedric Ceballos would also be an MVP caliber in today's league. Chris Weber would easily be a multiple time MVP.

Now feel free to show me how I misquoted you or went wrong in applying your logic.

The problem lies mainly with C. You imagine that a certain correlation and trajectory exists.

As for him rarely being the best player, that's another American-ism where it's all black or white. The Lakers trio in the 1991 Finals was Magic, Worthy and Divac. Byron Scott was completely shut off. Do you think he couldn't have led a playoff team in scoring in the early 90s?

He was the 2nd best player in Sacramento. He hated it at Charlotte but he was still good enough. It's not as if he was some scrub. This was the starting center of the last Showtime Lakers team! Ask his teammates how valuable he was to the team...
This was the 2nd best center in the West when he moved back and he was over 31 years old. That was when the West started to become a monopoly in the NBA and the East just had a guest star Finals appearance.

As for your question in part C, of course Chris Webber could have been an MVP winner in this era. You doubt that? Everyone on the Open Court panel was telling him how he was born in the wrong era and how dominant he'd be in this one. I guess they were all not being candid?
Ceballos of course couldn't.

What makes you think that Webber wouldn't be an MVP candidate in today's game?




Does Sam Smith not know what he's talking about when he says that Kukoc was better than Doncic in Europe and by the time they both came to the NBA? And in general, in terms of talent and projection. I don't see you caring much about that opinion, which was not said by me. Why would he say that a non-All star 6th man is as good as a recent MVP contender?

Do you feel more qualified than someone who was following the Bulls and several international basketball stars from the late 80s until fairly recently?

[NYKalltheway]

Not skillset- talent! Divac was not a corner stone then, he wouldn’t be today either. Size him up with someone like Embiid and Joel would eat his food every time.

And bringing up guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson is a moot point because they were simply better than Divac. Cmon man is this even a conversation?

You're acting as if Embiid wouldn't be eaten alive by those guys. My guy would look like Anthony Mason with no fighting spirit against Shaq.

[valade16]

You're acting as if Embiid wouldn't be eaten alive by those guys. My guy would look like Anthony Mason with no fighting spirit against Shaq.

Well this is again based off your entirely warped perspective that players today pale in comparison to players of yesteryear. It is not true. The idea that Embiid would be Charles Shackleford if he played in the 90's is ridiculous.

Would Embiid struggle with Shaq? Of course. Newsflash: Hakeem, Ewing, and D-Rob struggled with Shaq. That isn't unique to Embiid.

[valade16]

About the only thing I actually agree with NYK on is that, in general, Toni Kukoc and Vlade Divac are underrated.

[NYKalltheway]

Yep, it's just insanity. Vlade Divac would be MVP. Larry Johnson would be MVP. Toni Kukoc would be MVP.

I have never seen someone cling to their childhood nostalgia as hard as him. It's the strongest, most concentrated bias I have ever seen.

And what's crazy is, Divac > Jokic isn't even his craziest take. He also thinks Dominique Wilkins is better than LeBron James.

The real question is here is why did the NBA come to the point where Nikola Jokic as MVP is something standard?

Larry Johnson wouldn't have been MVP in this era. Divac would, because we've seen his type of player win it. And Divac could offer a lot more on the court, that's what you don't see.

Toni Kukoc would be like Doncic. That's the consensus.

Drazen Petrovic was Doncic. He just didn't wanna stick around and left the NBA shortly before his untimely death.

None of these were considered the best players in the league. Today, they are. Not because they are better. That's nowhere near true.

The only things that have changed are:
1) International tolerance in the NBA: Foreign players get a lot more respect these days.

2) Physicality difference: Europe was rather physical, but it was a playground compared to the 80s/90s NBA. Today, the opposite is true. The NBA has turned into a playground and Europe has much more physicality. This also means that players coming over are more prepared to face NBA defenses because they were used to worse treatment and there is no adjustment period necessary. It's the opposite that they have to care about, being overly physical themselves.

3) Rules changed: You're allowed to play without having to fear that someone will shove you and force a turnover out of you. That's the biggest one. It allows Doncic to keep hold of the ball whereas Kukoc was rolled over quite frequently, especially at the beginning.

4) Roles are different: NBA was very rigid in the 90s, today it's more fluid, far more similar to the European version of the sport than the 90s NBA. Makes transition easier. We've had "positionless" guards for 25-30 years and whenever they came to the NBA they were benched for an entire season because the coaches had no idea how and where to play them (ie Spanoulis, Navarro, Sasha Djordjevic, Jasikevicius etc). They did not fit the standardized NBA roles of Point Guard, Shooting Guard and so on.

5) Internet and the Social media. Yes, this helps. Why? It makes adapting to a new country much easier. It also makes these guys more approachable to the NBA fanbase. Even guys like Yao were a mystery to other NBA players in the early 2000s, Shaq didn't even know the guy spoke English until 3 years later. Now you know everything about everyone, even fans. Helps immensely.

And on top of everything, more and more international players are coming over to the NBA, it's easier for these players to move. Divac was one of 5 non-Americans to play in the NBA when he first came and he did just fine, but at the same time he had to think about his family being bombarded for 10 years. It's hardly the same period of time.



You want to talk about nostalgia bias, yet here you are, king of recency bias, saying that players are better now, basketball is better now, when EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING THE OPPOSITE! You don't even understand that they don't have to openly say it. NBA ratings are down, NBA interest is generally trending downwards all over the world, with a few small spikes in countries whenever there's a local player doing well in the league.

Last two years, NBA playoffs audience down 25% apparently. Even during the bubble season where people had nothing else to do, nobody cared about the NBA. Worst ratings ever. And that's with the apparent "GOAT" playing for a championship. Isn't that odd? Would Jordan have such low tv ratings? Would Magic or Bird?
And don't talk to me about other US sports, I don't care. Not part of the discussion. Want to talk basketball? Even the Euroleague saw a rise in TV ratings in the past two seasons and that's with a cancelled season (2020)!


Do people watch the Regular Season anymore?



Not as much I suppose. All the recent ones are at the bottom.
1994-95 is what you don't see dead last, because it has N/A rating.

So there's no 2010s season that's ahead of any 90s season.
From the last 10 seasons, 8 of them are at the bottom 10. And that's the two first ones on the list, 2011-12 lockout season and 2012-13 season. So with this trend, in the next couple of years, it'll be 9/10 bottom seasons will be from the last 10 and since 2006-7 is the only thorn there, maybe in 6-7 years it'll be 10/10.

How many people watch the first rounds of playoffs as opposed to previous years?

All star games, how many people watch them anymore? The best of the best against one another:


2008 is the bottom one.

Does this trend show anything to you?
I find it surprising that from the 2011 edition and on, none of them managed over 10m viewers. Yet we've had 12 of those from 1990 have such numbers, one even got over 20m.

Isn't this worrying you? How many people do you expect to tell you that the NBA is lower quality now than it used to be? They usually say it with their remote control and their wallet, they don't yell I don't like it. You don't stand outside McDonalds and shout that you dislike their food, you simply become indifferent. You don't care, you don't voice opinions, you let them be. This is what's happening with the NBA now.

Just check 6 year old threads.
Check 10 year old threads.

You will see names that just aren't here anymore.

How many people participated on PSD in these threads? How many today? We're basically recycling the same discussions over the last 3 years between 10 of us...
Only a handful of team forums are active. Knicks, Lakers and a few others.

Why is that? Don't people think that the NBA is better? Shouldn't this show an uptrend in participation of NBA related discussion? Shouldn't more people flock in, even if forums aren't as hip as they once were? [hint, they never were].