migya wrote:Expansions can spreadout the talent pool but don't forget - There were four teams (off the top of my head) that joined the nba in the late 80s, while there was only two teams that joined in the mid 90s. (Denver, Minnesota, Miami and Orlando in 80s and Vancouver and Toronto in 90s). By this token, the 80s had a greater disperse of talent due to the four expansion teams than the 90s did due to the two expansion teams and so the 80s had less talent (at least using your point here).

I don't agree. Those teams take a while to build, the spreadout of talent doens't have any effect until a few years later. That means, the 90's.

Look at the Bobcats. In their first season, only Okafor was a good player. Last year they added Felton and this years Morrison. It takes a while before those teams mean something to the overall talent of the league.

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:
Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point?

if there are 24 allstars for 23 teams, the teams should be better than 24 allstars for 30 teams.

If every player in the nba were crap, they would still have to pick 24 of them for the allstar game! Means nothing!

Since it appears that you don't have a statistical background let me explain it to you like this:
If there is one team, then the 12 best players in the world will be on that one team - Garnett is a 12th man
If there are ten than the 120 best players in the world will be on those teams - players like fisher become 12th men
If there are 23 teams then that's the 276 best players in the world. players like JR smith and Quinton Ross become 12th men
If there are 30 teams than the 360 best players in the world will be on those teams. Players like Vitale Popatenko are 12th men
If there are 60 teams then NBDL guys would be in team's regular rotations.

Do you understand my point now?

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:Expansions can spreadout the talent pool but don't forget - There were four teams (off the top of my head) that joined the nba in the late 80s, while there was only two teams that joined in the mid 90s. (Denver, Minnesota, Miami and Orlando in 80s and Vancouver and Toronto in 90s). By this token, the 80s had a greater disperse of talent due to the four expansion teams than the 90s did due to the two expansion teams and so the 80s had less talent (at least using your point here).

errr.... well first you don't get what I'm saying. It doesn't matter at what rate they're expanding, it matters that they're expanding.

And second, there were four new teams in the 90s IIRC

Don't get what your saying. If the nba expands and if that means that talent is dispersed over more teams (somewhat making each team less talented on average) then the more expansion teams in a period of time, the more dispersion.

What were those four expansion teams in the 90s? I only know of the Grizz and Raps

It's not the more expansion teams over a period of time, the more dispersion, it's the more expansion teams there's been the more dispersion

EDIT: I don't know which four teams were added in the 90s, all I know is that there were 25 in 89 and 29 in 99

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:but one last thing before I do
Here were the allstars who played signifigant minutes in the best season of the 90s by winshares:
Jordan - 18.54
Isiah - 7.96
Barkley - 9.35
Rodman - 12.2
Pippen - 15.39
Magic - 9.59 (since he DNP used mean of 91 and 96 seasons)
Glide - 13.88
Mullin - 12.38
Hardaway - 12.02
Olajuwon - 11.99
Hornacek - 8.4
That's 137 winshares between them
and in the 80s:
Bird - 17.30
Wilkins - 11.2
Jordan - 16.4
Thomas - 9.97
Malone - 8.32
Magic - 15.6
Malone - 12.49
Lever - 13.14
Hakeem - 12.36
English - 11
Drexler - 14.35
that's 153 winshares between them

The top 11 allstars in 92 combined for about 12% of the league's winshares. The top 11 87 allstars combined for 16%. But you don't have to look at stats to see which team is better. It's pretty obvious

i'd say the 90s allstars would take the 80s allstars

Here's how I see it those years
88 92
Jordan=Jordan
Magic>Magic
Bird>Pippen
Glide=Glide
Hakeem=Hakeem
Mailman>Barkley (that season)
Isiah>Isiah
Nique>Mullin
English>Rodman
Lever=Hardaway (that season, it really depends on what kind of player you want)
Moses>Hornacek (the positions don't match up, but it's pretty obvious)

There was pretty much no position that 92 was better than 88 at. It's laughable to say the 92 allstars would take the 88 ones

I'll say that Pest is something of a genius with stats. I will also offer you the famous quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Not to say Pest's #s are bad, but numbers can be manipulated to prove just about any point - look at the GOP with minimum wage and the estate tax (raising the pay for 30 million people is bad, cutting the taxes of the 1600 wealthiest is good...)

coltraning wrote:I'll say that Pest is something of a genius with stats. I will also offer you the famous quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Not to say Pest's #s are bad, but numbers can be manipulated to prove just about any point - look at the GOP with minimum wage and the estate tax (raising the pay for 30 million people is bad, cutting the taxes of the 1600 wealthiest is good...)

cant say it better myself.
statistics is overrated in the nba. its what you dont see on the stat sheets that matters more sometimes.

migya wrote:

kfresh wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:first of all, jordan was at his best in the 80s. Secondly, pippen was not a star in the 80s. Third, every era has players who were stars in the previous era improve, just because KG is better now than he was in 98 doesn't mean the league is better now. But we can keep naming specific players to the cows come home, I'm going to make a quality of play thread

i'd have to disagree on jordan being at his best in the 80s.

to me, i would have to say MJ was in his prime from the 1991-93 seasons.

Agree but he was also a more complete player during the second 3peat but his team as a whole had alot more talent. Harper was better than either Paxson or BJ, Pippen was better than he was before, Rodman was better than Grant and Longley was better than the old haggus Cartwright. Kerr and Kukoc highlight a very good bench that were far more talented than the Paxson, Stacey Kind and Will Perdue lead garbage of the first 3peat.

Jordan developed that fading jumper that was probably the most unstoppable move there was and the prik made them all the time

yeah i agree, he was definitely a more complete player in the 2nd 3peat.

MJs fadeaway is definitely one of the most unstoppable moves in the game. Its up there with the the skyhook.
I must say i love KGs fadeaway too. When he gets the ball that high and falls back its almost impossible to guard.

One thing i LOVE about MJ in the 90s was that he started to make players around him better, taking his teammates to a new level. It shows a sign of growth, maturity, and higher knowledge for the game [something stats cant even measure].

kfresh wrote:

coltraning wrote:I'll say that Pest is something of a genius with stats. I will also offer you the famous quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Not to say Pest's #s are bad, but numbers can be manipulated to prove just about any point - look at the GOP with minimum wage and the estate tax (raising the pay for 30 million people is bad, cutting the taxes of the 1600 wealthiest is good...)

cant say it better myself.
statistics is overrated in the nba. its what you dont see on the stat sheets that matters more sometimes.

Well first, I will say that any form of debate is futile if you don't say anything but opinions (especially when you contradict your own opinions repeatedly!) then, to quote one of the three greatest comedy troups of the 20th century: "It isn't an argument it's just contradiction"

It is true, statistics are overrated, but the majority of the time statistics will be more accurate than a random guy on a warriors forum if used correctly and I repeat, there is no way to have a free flowing debate without using facts. Sometimes they aren't more acurate than opinion.

This is mostly a moot point though since my most recent three posts contained no stats so I'm not sure why that's being brought up now.

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:
Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point?

if there are 24 allstars for 23 teams, the teams should be better than 24 allstars for 30 teams.

If every player in the nba were crap, they would still have to pick 24 of them for the allstar game! Means nothing!

Since it appears that you don't have a statistical background let me explain it to you like this:
If there is one team, then the 12 best players in the world will be on that one team - Garnett is a 12th man
If there are ten than the 120 best players in the world will be on those teams - players like fisher become 12th men
If there are 23 teams then that's the 276 best players in the world. players like JR smith and Quinton Ross become 12th men
If there are 30 teams than the 360 best players in the world will be on those teams. Players like Vitale Popatenko are 12th men
If there are 60 teams then NBDL guys would be in team's regular rotations.

Do you understand my point now?

I understnd this particular point but what you previously wrote was "if there are 24 allstars for 23 teams, the teams should be better than 24 allstars for 30 teams.", which means nothing about who is on every nba team but just shows that there are 24 allstars every season, 12 on each team. My response was "Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point?", which means that it doesn't matter how many teams there are, there HAS to be 24 players chosen every season. The 24 players chosen next season, for example, will likely be far more talented than the 24 allstars picked 30 years ago but the point is, 24 have to be picked and that does not really reflect much about the nba teams, just that there was alot of competition and maybe even that the talent level is far better, since there was many players that could have been selected as part of the 24 but weren't.

Get my point?

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:
Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point?

if there are 24 allstars for 23 teams, the teams should be better than 24 allstars for 30 teams.

If every player in the nba were crap, they would still have to pick 24 of them for the allstar game! Means nothing!

Since it appears that you don't have a statistical background let me explain it to you like this:
If there is one team, then the 12 best players in the world will be on that one team - Garnett is a 12th man
If there are ten than the 120 best players in the world will be on those teams - players like fisher become 12th men
If there are 23 teams then that's the 276 best players in the world. players like JR smith and Quinton Ross become 12th men
If there are 30 teams than the 360 best players in the world will be on those teams. Players like Vitale Popatenko are 12th men
If there are 60 teams then NBDL guys would be in team's regular rotations.

Do you understand my point now?

I understnd this particular point but what you previously wrote was "if there are 24 allstars for 23 teams, the teams should be better than 24 allstars for 30 teams.", which means nothing about who is on every nba team but just shows that there are 24 allstars every season, 12 on each team. My response was "Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point?", which means that it doesn't matter how many teams there are, there HAS to be 24 players chosen every season. The 24 players chosen next season, for example, will likely be far more talented than the 24 allstars picked 30 years ago but the point is, 24 have to be picked and that does not really reflect much about the nba teams, just that there was alot of competition and maybe even that the talent level is far better, since there was many players that could have been selected as part of the 24 but weren't.

Get my point?

yes, except that the 80s allstars were superior and there were less teams

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:but one last thing before I do
Here were the allstars who played signifigant minutes in the best season of the 90s by winshares:
Jordan - 18.54
Isiah - 7.96
Barkley - 9.35
Rodman - 12.2
Pippen - 15.39
Magic - 9.59 (since he DNP used mean of 91 and 96 seasons)
Glide - 13.88
Mullin - 12.38
Hardaway - 12.02
Olajuwon - 11.99
Hornacek - 8.4
That's 137 winshares between them
and in the 80s:
Bird - 17.30
Wilkins - 11.2
Jordan - 16.4
Thomas - 9.97
Malone - 8.32
Magic - 15.6
Malone - 12.49
Lever - 13.14
Hakeem - 12.36
English - 11
Drexler - 14.35
that's 153 winshares between them

The top 11 allstars in 92 combined for about 12% of the league's winshares. The top 11 87 allstars combined for 16%. But you don't have to look at stats to see which team is better. It's pretty obvious

i'd say the 90s allstars would take the 80s allstars

Here's how I see it those years
88 92
Jordan=Jordan
Magic>Magic
Bird>Pippen
Glide=Glide
Hakeem=Hakeem
Mailman>Barkley (that season)
Isiah>Isiah
Nique>Mullin
English>Rodman
Lever=Hardaway (that season, it really depends on what kind of player you want)
Moses>Hornacek (the positions don't match up, but it's pretty obvious)

There was pretty much no position that 92 was better than 88 at. It's laughable to say the 92 allstars would take the 88 ones

Here is how I see those two years:

88 92
Jordan<or=Jordan - I reckon Jordan was better as his career went on in the Bulls but that is debateable
Magic>Magic
Bird>Pippen - Bird maybe just a little better because Pippen was really becoming a superstar that season
Glide<Glide - Debateable but Drexler was second in MVP to Jordan in the 191-92 season, his best ever
Hakeem<Hakeem - Olajuwon made himself an alltime great later in his career
Mailman>Barkley (that season) - Debateable but Barkley was not at his best that season
Isiah>Isiah
Nique>Mullin - Mullin not far behind Nique as he had a great season averaging some 25pts and making the Warriors make the plyoffs again, without Mitch this time
English : Rodman - Debateable, as Rodman was by far the best rebounder and came close to getting defensive player of the year while English was nearing the end of his career but I'll say inconclusive, otherwise Rodman wins out
Lever<Hardaway - Lever was a triple double maniac as only Bird and Magic got more than him in the 80s but Hardaway had his arguably career season in 1991-92, averaging the most points he ever has and taking the Warriors without Mitch to the playoffs
Moses>Hornacek (the positions don't match up, but it's pretty obvious) - I'll give this one but Moses was nearing the end of his career and Hornacek was having perhaps his best.


This does not mean that talent was better in the 80s, does give an indication that in those particular seasons the allstars were perhaps better, but does not even indicate total league talent and certainly does not represent the entire 80s and 90s!

kfresh wrote:

coltraning wrote:I'll say that Pest is something of a genius with stats. I will also offer you the famous quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Not to say Pest's #s are bad, but numbers can be manipulated to prove just about any point - look at the GOP with minimum wage and the estate tax (raising the pay for 30 million people is bad, cutting the taxes of the 1600 wealthiest is good...)

cant say it better myself.
statistics is overrated in the nba. its what you dont see on the stat sheets that matters more sometimes.

Sometimes that really is the case

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

migya wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:but one last thing before I do
Here were the allstars who played signifigant minutes in the best season of the 90s by winshares:
Jordan - 18.54
Isiah - 7.96
Barkley - 9.35
Rodman - 12.2
Pippen - 15.39
Magic - 9.59 (since he DNP used mean of 91 and 96 seasons)
Glide - 13.88
Mullin - 12.38
Hardaway - 12.02
Olajuwon - 11.99
Hornacek - 8.4
That's 137 winshares between them
and in the 80s:
Bird - 17.30
Wilkins - 11.2
Jordan - 16.4
Thomas - 9.97
Malone - 8.32
Magic - 15.6
Malone - 12.49
Lever - 13.14
Hakeem - 12.36
English - 11
Drexler - 14.35
that's 153 winshares between them

The top 11 allstars in 92 combined for about 12% of the league's winshares. The top 11 87 allstars combined for 16%. But you don't have to look at stats to see which team is better. It's pretty obvious

i'd say the 90s allstars would take the 80s allstars

Here's how I see it those years
88 92
Jordan=Jordan
Magic>Magic
Bird>Pippen
Glide=Glide
Hakeem=Hakeem
Mailman>Barkley (that season)
Isiah>Isiah
Nique>Mullin
English>Rodman
Lever=Hardaway (that season, it really depends on what kind of player you want)
Moses>Hornacek (the positions don't match up, but it's pretty obvious)

There was pretty much no position that 92 was better than 88 at. It's laughable to say the 92 allstars would take the 88 ones

Here is how I see those two years:

88 92
Jordan<or=Jordan - I reckon Jordan was better as his career went on in the Bulls but that is debateable
Magic>Magic
Bird>Pippen - Bird maybe just a little better because Pippen was really becoming a superstar that season
Glide<Glide - Debateable but Drexler was second in MVP to Jordan in the 191-92 season, his best ever
Hakeem<Hakeem - Olajuwon made himself an alltime great later in his career
Mailman>Barkley (that season) - Debateable but Barkley was not at his best that season
Isiah>Isiah
Nique>Mullin - Mullin not far behind Nique as he had a great season averaging some 25pts and making the Warriors make the plyoffs again, without Mitch this time
English : Rodman - Debateable, as Rodman was by far the best rebounder and came close to getting defensive player of the year while English was nearing the end of his career but I'll say inconclusive, otherwise Rodman wins out
Lever<Hardaway - Lever was a triple double maniac as only Bird and Magic got more than him in the 80s but Hardaway had his arguably career season in 1991-92, averaging the most points he ever has and taking the Warriors without Mitch to the playoffs
Moses>Hornacek (the positions don't match up, but it's pretty obvious) - I'll give this one but Moses was nearing the end of his career and Hornacek was having perhaps his best.


This does not mean that talent was better in the 80s, does give an indication that in those particular seasons the allstars were perhaps better, but does not even indicate total league talent and certainly does not represent the entire 80s and 90s!

I agree with most of your synopses, except that 92 dexler was better than 88. I know stats aren't everything, but they're useful when you're comparing somebody to himself (because then there isn't an "intangibles" discrepancy or a defense discrepancy to any meaningful degree) and I think that the guy averaging 27-7-6 on 51% shooting and 81% ft shooting is better than the guy averaging 25-7-7 on 47% shooting and 79% ft shooting (when it's the same guy so there's no defense or intangibles difference), though it's damned close.