Players aren’t more skilled today, the rules are just different

[Potential]

Stop living in the past the players are way more skilled and athletic and better today

Stop the cap

League MVP is built like a blob

Even the blobs are way better

[C3H6N6O6]

Forget about skills, the talent pool is way way way bigger compared to the 80s and even 90s. That alone makes the league a lot more talented.

[JRoy]

Shooting more threes and crying to the officials after missed shots does not equal more skilled.

[SweaterBae]

Skill development has improved, and if the players "back then" had the same advantages they would likely have improved at similar rate. And if they were allowed to take 4 steps, change pivot feet 3 times, and carry the ball 500 times a game they'd look even better.

[Johnny Firpo]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

[picko]

Forget about skills, the talent pool is way way way bigger compared to the 80s and even 90s. That alone makes the league a lot more talented.

Yep, this idea that the talent or skills in an American league were equal or superior to that of a global league is quite simply absurd. The talent pool is incredibly deep right now.

[Johnny Bball]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

There are 30 teams in the league not 23 teams, and each team carries 17 players, not 11? Is the league's talent pool (510/253 players) twice as big as the past when it was seasoned 4th year college players being drafted? I don't know precisely, but neither do you.

[ChiTownHero1992]

It's both, players from each new generation are always going to be arguably "better" than the previous generation due to science, medicine and just the game evolving slightly however that is not how we can reasonably judge players against one another.

The game does change and IMO the game itself is 100000x worse than it used to be because rules are not called the way they should be.

But reasonably we can't compare generations because if you give players from the 60's, 70's, 80s, 90's, etc modern science and mediccine they would be IMO better players than the ones currently in the NBA they were more true to the game of basketball. If a guy like Elgin Baylor was built like LeBron, he'd be arguably in the Top 5 players...if Mikan was built like Shaq, game over....Bill Walton had modern medicine he likely doesn't have the injuries and a better body and therefore we'd be talking about him as a potential GOAT...A guy like Kyrie is praised for his ball handling, but I'd argue Pete Maravich was better, you allow Pete to palm, travel, double dribble and watch out and likewise if you make Kyrie actually dribble the way the rulebook states he would average 40 turnovers....its apples and oranges TBH

[Meat]

There is no way that skill development hasn’t improved in the last 50 years. Every field of work sees development and improvement over time, especially over the period of multiple decades.

I’ve learned from the old heads that everything has gone backwards in the past few decades.

At least they are musically correct

Oh for sure. I prefer the music I listened to in high school over the stuff of today as well

So has ever every person that’s ever lived, that’s your parents, grandparents, kids today

[Meat]

It's both, players from each new generation are always going to be arguably "better" than the previous generation due to science, medicine and just the game evolving slightly however that is not how we can reasonably judge players against one another.

The game does change and IMO the game itself is 100000x worse than it used to be because rules are not called the way they should be.

But reasonably we can't compare generations because if you give players from the 60's, 70's, 80s, 90's, etc modern science and mediccine they would be IMO better players than the ones currently in the NBA they were more true to the game of basketball. If a guy like Elgin Baylor was built like LeBron, he'd be arguably in the Top 5 players...if Mikan was built like Shaq, game over....Bill Walton had modern medicine he likely doesn't have the injuries and a better body and therefore we'd be talking about him as a potential GOAT...A guy like Kyrie is praised for his ball handling, but I'd argue Pete Maravich was better, you allow Pete to palm, travel, double dribble and watch out and likewise if you make Kyrie actually dribble the way the rulebook states he would average 40 turnovers....its apples and oranges TBH

Just for reference, how old were you when you’d say the game way called the “right way”

[knicksNOTslick]

It's both, players from each new generation are always going to be arguably "better" than the previous generation due to science, medicine and just the game evolving slightly however that is not how we can reasonably judge players against one another.

The game does change and IMO the game itself is 100000x worse than it used to be because rules are not called the way they should be.

But reasonably we can't compare generations because if you give players from the 60's, 70's, 80s, 90's, etc modern science and mediccine they would be IMO better players than the ones currently in the NBA they were more true to the game of basketball. If a guy like Elgin Baylor was built like LeBron, he'd be arguably in the Top 5 players...if Mikan was built like Shaq, game over....Bill Walton had modern medicine he likely doesn't have the injuries and a better body and therefore we'd be talking about him as a potential GOAT...its apples and oranges TBH

100 percent agree with this post.

This is why we can't really definitively proclaim someone as GOAT just based on the stats alone and who had the more difficult matchups. It's just a different game as the league continues to evolve and get better. IMO the only way to measure how good a player is by how well they do against their peers. Because they've been brought through the same type of development, science, medicine, etc. Compared to how much players get paid now as opposed to the 80s and 90s, that's also a huge difference. More money to the players and the league as a whole, more access to the more advanced stuff. Even analytics has changed how the game is played.

Today's players also benefit from watching the greats of the past so you can't really compare. We have seen the influence.

[ChiTownHero1992]

It's both, players from each new generation are always going to be arguably "better" than the previous generation due to science, medicine and just the game evolving slightly however that is not how we can reasonably judge players against one another.

The game does change and IMO the game itself is 100000x worse than it used to be because rules are not called the way they should be.

But reasonably we can't compare generations because if you give players from the 60's, 70's, 80s, 90's, etc modern science and mediccine they would be IMO better players than the ones currently in the NBA they were more true to the game of basketball. If a guy like Elgin Baylor was built like LeBron, he'd be arguably in the Top 5 players...if Mikan was built like Shaq, game over....Bill Walton had modern medicine he likely doesn't have the injuries and a better body and therefore we'd be talking about him as a potential GOAT...A guy like Kyrie is praised for his ball handling, but I'd argue Pete Maravich was better, you allow Pete to palm, travel, double dribble and watch out and likewise if you make Kyrie actually dribble the way the rulebook states he would average 40 turnovers....its apples and oranges TBH

Just for reference, how old were you when you’d say the game way called the “right way”

Honestly NBA wise...never seeen it in my 35+ years of watching basketball....NCAA/HS wise it has vastly changed in the last 10 years (i've been coaching HS since 2006 and seen a drastic change in how things are called starting right around 2012-2015). NBA wise it hasn't been called correctly since the late 70's/early 80's and even then it was changed slightly as it always does. Each generation "alters" the rules slightly to give themselves an advantage (the step-back, the gather, etc none of which were legal just 15 years ago let alone 30) but same could be said back in those generations too, things just change but its a worse product with each new generation.

[KrAzY3]

Well I think the general point is valid, I've seen plenty of posts making fun of how people used to dribble and the fact of the matter is that was the rules. So you see a modern player handling the ball and if you are oblivious to how blatantly they violate the rules, you are like wow he's so good. But, if players in the past could break the rules with no consequence they'd handle the ball differently as well.

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

Generally valid, but a counter to that would be that for example the NBA was only 8 teams during most of Bill Russell's time with the Celtics. The NBA now has 30 teams, so for some time periods at least the larger talent pool should be measured relative to the slots available in the NBA. Furthermore, we certainly now have a lot more kids growing up in front of a TV or a video game console when some previous generations spent more time playing sports.

[Harry Garris]

There is no way that skill development hasn’t improved in the last 50 years. Every field of work sees development and improvement over time, especially over the period of multiple decades.

I don't believe that is true at all. I think more than the skill development being radically overhauled I think teams have realized what is required to play efficient basketball and have moved away from players and playstyles that are not efficient.

Players have also stopped focusing on those areas as well. Particularly the midrange and post. How many times have we seen guys 20-40 lbs heavier and 2-3 inches taller deathly afraid to take advantage of an obvious matchup in the post, many bigs today have very little or rudimentary post moves. That wouldn't have happened 20-30 years ago.

Of course, it was rare that any of the 4 or 5 could shoot from range either. Now you look at guys like Monroe and Okafor they can't find jobs. It's not because they are unskilled it's because their skills are not valued in todays game.

You’re making a false equivalency, that since teams develop skills in a different way than the past, that no improvement has been made. The first statement can be true while also seeing areas of improvement.

[Johnny Bball]

It's both, players from each new generation are always going to be arguably "better" than the previous generation due to science, medicine and just the game evolving slightly however that is not how we can reasonably judge players against one another.

The game does change and IMO the game itself is 100000x worse than it used to be because rules are not called the way they should be.

But reasonably we can't compare generations because if you give players from the 60's, 70's, 80s, 90's, etc modern science and mediccine they would be IMO better players than the ones currently in the NBA they were more true to the game of basketball. If a guy like Elgin Baylor was built like LeBron, he'd be arguably in the Top 5 players...if Mikan was built like Shaq, game over....Bill Walton had modern medicine he likely doesn't have the injuries and a better body and therefore we'd be talking about him as a potential GOAT...A guy like Kyrie is praised for his ball handling, but I'd argue Pete Maravich was better, you allow Pete to palm, travel, double dribble and watch out and likewise if you make Kyrie actually dribble the way the rulebook states he would average 40 turnovers....its apples and oranges TBH

Well...They obviously didn't give the players of the 90's small improvements in modern science that is 30 years ahead.

But everyone seemingly forgets what they did have then they most players don't have now. They had what every sport had, rampant steroid abuse of the steroid era. You tell me what has a bigger impact? Sure, players can still use PEDs, but I'm doubtful they could full on abuse them like the 90's.

How many sprinters have beat 5'9" Ben Johnson's 1988 steroid time of 9.79 in the olympics in the 100m in the last 40 years? One? 6"5" Usain Bolt? That ain't right for for what should obviously, over time, be far better athletes than short Ben Johnson.

Other eras prior, definitely larger improvements comparatively.

[JRoy]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

The talent pool is the whole world. That is great for basketball.

[Johnny Firpo]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

There are 30 teams in the league not 23 teams, and each team carries 17 players, not 11? Is the league's talent pool (510/253 players) twice as big as the past when it was seasoned 4th year college players being drafted? I don't know precisely, but neither do you.

Umm, I'm talking about the global talent pool. There are academies everywhere today, they streamline African, Asian, European talent to the NBA, not to mention, there are so many U.S. academies. Young players in their early teens go to another state, find their specialized academy program. There was nothing like that in the past, and we haven't even started talking about the improved and more targeted scouting. There haven't ever been that much money poured into the sport before. The only logical conclusion is that the talent will be better. You may not like the rules, you may not like the three point shooting, but that's a totally separate discussion.

[Johnny Firpo]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

The talent pool is the whole world. That is great for basketball.

Exactly.

[Johnny Bball]

There is not a single counter-argument to the fact that the talent pool, the available pool of players is much bigger than it ever was. But please, explain it to me how that does not have to lead to a better average of individual skill, just don't use logic, because that's not going to be on your side.

There are 30 teams in the league not 23 teams, and each team carries 17 players, not 11? Is the league's talent pool (510/253 players) twice as big as the past when it was seasoned 4th year college players being drafted? I don't know precisely, but neither do you.

Umm, I'm talking about the global talent pool. There are academies everywhere today, they streamline African, Asian, European talent to the NBA, not to mention, there are so many U.S. academies. Young players in their early teens go to another state, find their specialized academy program. There was nothing like that in the past, and we haven't even started talking about the improved and more targeted scouting. There haven't ever been that much money poured into the sport before. The only logical conclusion is that the talent will be better. You may not like the rules, you may not like the three point shooting, but that's a totally separate discussion.

I know you are talking about the global pool. And the NBA would only sign the best of foreign players like any sport in the distant past. The question is, has the talentpool doubled? Are there double the NCAA schools/NBA calibre players in the US? Nope. Does Europe etc. double it? You don't know the answer to that and neither do I, its pure speculation.

Rules have nothing to do with it.

[Johnny Firpo]

There are 30 teams in the league not 23 teams, and each team carries 17 players, not 11? Is the league's talent pool (510/253 players) twice as big as the past when it was seasoned 4th year college players being drafted? I don't know precisely, but neither do you.

Umm, I'm talking about the global talent pool. There are academies everywhere today, they streamline African, Asian, European talent to the NBA, not to mention, there are so many U.S. academies. Young players in their early teens go to another state, find their specialized academy program. There was nothing like that in the past, and we haven't even started talking about the improved and more targeted scouting. There haven't ever been that much money poured into the sport before. The only logical conclusion is that the talent will be better. You may not like the rules, you may not like the three point shooting, but that's a totally separate discussion.

I know you are talking about the global pool. And the NBA would only sign the best of foreign players like any sport in the distant past. The question is, has the talentpool doubled? Are there double the NCAA schools/NBA calibre players in the US? Nope. Does Europe etc. double it? You don't know the answer to that and neither do I, its pure speculation.

Rules have nothing to do with it.

Well, we kind of do. for example, there weren't any NBA academies in the 90s or 2000s, now there is a full program that streamlines talent in India, Australia, Europe and Africa. Four academies that work with hundreds of scouts. They had one program in China, but that closed. Then you have the Basketball Without Borders program, that's a joint FIBA-NBA thing, that also did not exist in the 90s. Also, more kids play the sport than ever before. Found some stats, apparently there has been a 50% increase in participation since 1994 (high school only). Another thing, wouldn't any increase also increase the chances of being more top-end talent around the world? And that's kind of what we see, the top 5 players in the league all being internationals, which has never happened before.