Skills or Athleticism?

Here you can chat about anything that's not Warriors related.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Santa Clara, CA~Santa Barbara, CA
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:17 am
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
kfresh wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:
kfresh wrote:MJ showed us what great skills mixed with great and athleticism can do - become arguebly the best player of all time.


Jordan is definately the best ever!!!!

I never liked the bulls and was always going for the other team in the finals but Jordan showed flat out that he is the best ever. He lead the league in scoring more than anyone else ever did and was by far the main reason the Bulls won 6 championships and a much more competive era than any Lakers or Celtics team!

Jordan did what he had to do to win and that is that!

Agree with the entire post except "a much more competitive era than any lakers or celtics team". The 80s were more competitive because less teams=more concentration of talent.



Disagree - 80s had alot of talent but the defense almost didn't exist, making it easier because there were less factors. The Bulls won with great athletes and dominant players coming into the league, such as Shaq, Mourning, Grant Hill, Iverson etc. Players like Robinson, Barkley, Stockton and Malone were in their prime.

I believe that the Bulls had tough competition and won 6 championships! 2 3peats! Only the Russell Celtics did that and that era was a disgrace


COMPLETELY AGREE.

the 90s arguebly even had more talent in the league than it did in the 80s.
those 6 championships were hard earned by the bulls. they faced great teams throughout their great run and prevailed on top.

not to forget how great the ROCKETS were with hakeem. the 94 and 95 rockets are overshadowed by the MJ and bulls however, which is unfortunate.

Let's compare 87-88 to 95-96
MVP:
88: Jordan
96: Jordan
88 jordan was better than 96 jordan. next
Allstar game:
Terrell brandon, sean elliot, glen rice and juwon howard were allstars in 96. nuff said.
Champions:
The 88 championship team featured
players who combined for 36 allstar appearances
whereas the 96 one had 23
I could argue why the 88 team was better but I'll wait for it to be refuted
Runners up:
The ridiculously loaded pistons were head and shoulders above the sonics. the pistons had dantley, zeke, dumars, laimbeer, microwave, rodman, mahorn, salley, dawkins, etc. now that's what you call loaded.
ECF runners up:
The bird, mcHale, Parish, DJ, ainge, paxson team didn't make the finals. insane. that team was much better than orlando, and they only won 50 games
WCF runners up:
Mavs were better than the typical three player jazz team.

Need I continue? becuase 87-88 owns 95-96 in every way,

Doesn't change that MJ was the greatest ever BAR NONE!


thats only one year out of a decade.
and you cant really compare a 1988 mj to a 1996 mj.
to me, MJ in 96 had no dropoff from the mj in 1988.
MJ had phil, scottie, rodman, he had a complete team around him, thus the load on his shoulders dropped substantially. 1996 MJ was also a much more mature player in the way he attacked each game. sure there was a points per game drop off, but not everything about basketball is statsheet based becasue the game is just so much more than that. to me, MJ in 1988 is virtually the same as the MJ in 1996. his game adjusted to a new era of basketball and still dominated.

the 90s sure didnt have a dropoff in talent. it was a new wave of basketball. How can there be a dropoff when we had the clyde drexlers, the charles barkleys, the patrick ewing, SHAQ, grant hill, HAKEEM.
the list goes on.

the style was different between the two eras. but im going to have to say the 90s was a fresh, new look filled with bright stars and memorable moments.
In the Golden State of Mind since '97.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:03 am
kfresh wrote:thats only one year out of a decade.
and you cant really compare a 1988 mj to a 1996 mj.
to me, MJ in 96 had no dropoff from the mj in 1988.
MJ had phil, scottie, rodman, he had a complete team around him, thus the load on his shoulders dropped substantially. 1996 MJ was also a much more mature player in the way he attacked each game. sure there was a points per game drop off, but not everything about basketball is statsheet based becasue the game is just so much more than that. to me, MJ in 1988 is virtually the same as the MJ in 1996. his game adjusted to a new era of basketball and still dominated.

the 90s sure didnt have a dropoff in talent. it was a new wave of basketball. How can there be a dropoff when we had the clyde drexlers, the charles barkleys, the patrick ewing, SHAQ, grant hill, HAKEEM.
the list goes on.

the style was different between the two eras. but im going to have to say the 90s was a fresh, new look filled with bright stars and memorable moments.



Agree totally! :D

Jordan was better because he could do far more things than he could earlier in his career and he was more of a team player as well. Stats don't sure the reality in this situation
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:12 am
migya wrote:In response to Pest's post listing that the 96 season was really no good - BULLSHIIT!

wow migya, once again you say I said something I didn't. the 96 season was not garbage, but it wasn't as good as the 80s. period.

Alot of garbage listed that is meaningless, like the allstars from the 96 season - The 80s had garbage allstars as well so there is no significance!

here's the difference migya: If 1996 had 4 garbage allstars it means there were 20 legit ones. If 86 had 4 garbage allstars there were 20 legit ones. but 20 legit allstars spread across 22 teams is more per team than 20 spread across 29 teams. It's simple math. same amount of talent across less teams => more talented teams

The Celtics of the 80s were very good, as were the Pistons, for a few years there late in the 80s and teams like Houston and Philadelphia were also very good but not for every year like the Lakers and Celtics but for a few years only. Basically, it was almost always the same teams that were strong in the 80s because that's how it was - It was all geared towards the big market teams! It got harder as time went on to stay on top with the draft being geared towards the losing teams getting stronger.

The Bulls championship seasons had a powerful Houston team with Hakeem far better than he was in the 80s

the bulls never played houston in the finals.

, the Sonics who had no superstar but bombarded a team from every angle, offensively and defensively, with 5 players all the time, that is why they were so successful, Phoenix suns who were immensely talented and capable of going all the way for 3 or 4 years there, Orlando team that had a very talented starting five that played roles very well with perhaps the hardest to prepare for player in the nba, Shaq and lastely, the powerful Knicks team that was near the top for almost the whole decade! Other teams were notable but the fact is - the 90s had alot of talent and ushered in a new era of mega athleticism and lockdown defense!

yeah, but for every great team in the 90s there was a great team in the 80s. and expansion more than offset the influx of talent.

The 6 championships the Bulls won were incredible and they made it look relatively easy, thrashing alot of teams during their playoff runs
I never said they weren't incredible, simply that they didn't play in the very toughest era in NBA history
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:18 am
kfresh wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
kfresh wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:
kfresh wrote:MJ showed us what great skills mixed with great and athleticism can do - become arguebly the best player of all time.


Jordan is definately the best ever!!!!

I never liked the bulls and was always going for the other team in the finals but Jordan showed flat out that he is the best ever. He lead the league in scoring more than anyone else ever did and was by far the main reason the Bulls won 6 championships and a much more competive era than any Lakers or Celtics team!

Jordan did what he had to do to win and that is that!

Agree with the entire post except "a much more competitive era than any lakers or celtics team". The 80s were more competitive because less teams=more concentration of talent.



Disagree - 80s had alot of talent but the defense almost didn't exist, making it easier because there were less factors. The Bulls won with great athletes and dominant players coming into the league, such as Shaq, Mourning, Grant Hill, Iverson etc. Players like Robinson, Barkley, Stockton and Malone were in their prime.

I believe that the Bulls had tough competition and won 6 championships! 2 3peats! Only the Russell Celtics did that and that era was a disgrace


COMPLETELY AGREE.

the 90s arguebly even had more talent in the league than it did in the 80s.
those 6 championships were hard earned by the bulls. they faced great teams throughout their great run and prevailed on top.

not to forget how great the ROCKETS were with hakeem. the 94 and 95 rockets are overshadowed by the MJ and bulls however, which is unfortunate.

Let's compare 87-88 to 95-96
MVP:
88: Jordan
96: Jordan
88 jordan was better than 96 jordan. next
Allstar game:
Terrell brandon, sean elliot, glen rice and juwon howard were allstars in 96. nuff said.
Champions:
The 88 championship team featured
players who combined for 36 allstar appearances
whereas the 96 one had 23
I could argue why the 88 team was better but I'll wait for it to be refuted
Runners up:
The ridiculously loaded pistons were head and shoulders above the sonics. the pistons had dantley, zeke, dumars, laimbeer, microwave, rodman, mahorn, salley, dawkins, etc. now that's what you call loaded.
ECF runners up:
The bird, mcHale, Parish, DJ, ainge, paxson team didn't make the finals. insane. that team was much better than orlando, and they only won 50 games
WCF runners up:
Mavs were better than the typical three player jazz team.

Need I continue? becuase 87-88 owns 95-96 in every way,

Doesn't change that MJ was the greatest ever BAR NONE!


the 90s sure didnt have a dropoff in talent. it was a new wave of basketball. How can there be a dropoff when we had the clyde drexlers, the charles barkleys, the patrick ewing, SHAQ, grant hill, HAKEEM.
the list goes on.

wow, do either of you read a word of what I say before answering? I never said there was a dropoff in talent in the league, and you are naming individual players. but more teams means less concentration of talent so even if there was more talent, unless there was 27% more talent in the 90s, the teams were weaker. you can give individual examples of players but I can give individual examples of the three best players in NBA history at their best, along with a slew of other superstars
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:22 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:In response to Pest's post listing that the 96 season was really no good - BULLSHIIT!

wow migya, once again you say I said something I didn't. the 96 season was not garbage, but it wasn't as good as the 80s. period.


I didn't mean to offend Pest but you did give a list that made the 1996 season (just one of the six seasons the Bulls won a championship by the way) look like crap, giving allstars that YOU thought were crap and not giving an identical list for the 1988 season.


tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:Alot of garbage listed that is meaningless, like the allstars from the 96 season - The 80s had garbage allstars as well so there is no significance!

here's the difference migya: If 1996 had 4 garbage allstars it means there were 20 legit ones. If 86 had 4 garbage allstars there were 20 legit ones. but 20 legit allstars spread across 22 teams is more per team than 20 spread across 29 teams. It's simple math. same amount of talent across less teams => more talented teams


Pretty meaningless stat. There are only ever 24 allstars every season so what is your point? Fact is, many players in almost every season can be seen as allstarlike but they just aren't named allstars.


tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:The Celtics of the 80s were very good, as were the Pistons, for a few years there late in the 80s and teams like Houston and Philadelphia were also very good but not for every year like the Lakers and Celtics but for a few years only. Basically, it was almost always the same teams that were strong in the 80s because that's how it was - It was all geared towards the big market teams! It got harder as time went on to stay on top with the draft being geared towards the losing teams getting stronger.

The Bulls championship seasons had a powerful Houston team with Hakeem far better than he was in the 80s

the bulls never played houston in the finals.


Again, not much relevance as I didn't state that the Bulls played Houston, just that the Rockets team was a very strong team throughout the 90s.


tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:, the Sonics who had no superstar but bombarded a team from every angle, offensively and defensively, with 5 players all the time, that is why they were so successful, Phoenix suns who were immensely talented and capable of going all the way for 3 or 4 years there, Orlando team that had a very talented starting five that played roles very well with perhaps the hardest to prepare for player in the nba, Shaq and lastely, the powerful Knicks team that was near the top for almost the whole decade! Other teams were notable but the fact is - the 90s had alot of talent and ushered in a new era of mega athleticism and lockdown defense!

yeah, but for every great team in the 90s there was a great team in the 80s. and expansion more than offset the influx of talent.


One can say that there was a number of great teams every season since the beginning of the nba. The point is that talent is always getting better and so the nba is always getting more competitive.

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).


tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
migya wrote:The 6 championships the Bulls won were incredible and they made it look relatively easy, thrashing alot of teams during their playoff runs
I never said they weren't incredible, simply that they didn't play in the very toughest era in NBA history



It is debateable and nearly impossible to come to a conclusion as to which era was more talented, 80s or 90s but I believe that the talent is always getting better, greater athletes and level of the game as a whole. It also true that many of the superstars of the 90s, who were also stars in the 80s, such as Robinson, Olajuwon, Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Pippen and more debateable, Jordan, were better in the 90s than they were in the 80s
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:00 pm
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.
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:04 pm
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
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:41 pm
migya wrote:It is debateable and nearly impossible to come to a conclusion as to which era was more talented, 80s or 90s but I believe that the talent is always getting better, greater athletes and level of the game as a whole. It also true that many of the superstars of the 90s, who were also stars in the 80s, such as Robinson, Olajuwon, Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Pippen and more debateable, Jordan, were better in the 90s than they were in the 80s

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
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:43 pm
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
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
ImageImage
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Santa Clara, CA~Santa Barbara, CA
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:12 pm
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.
In the Golden State of Mind since '97.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:33 am
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!
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:36 am
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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:38 am
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
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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:41 am
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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya

All Star
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Berkeley
Poster Credit: 1
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:01 am
Dam, called Jordan A Prik :scratch:
The Broe Knows Dont Hate....
PreviousNext

Return to Off-Topic Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron