NyKnicks1714 wrote:Snakebites wrote:Michael Jordan is an all time great. I personally have him as number two all time- I'm definitely not one of those guys who says he'd be DeRozen if he played today.
But the talent level in the league is higher today. Look up and down a typical roster in today's NBA vs the 1990s- I really don't think there's any argument that this isn't the case. The game got more popular (in part due to Michael Jordan) both in the US and abroad. More people domestically and abroad became basketball players. The talent pool got deeper.
I don't know how people argue this, yet they do. Four teams were added from 1988 to 1989, with another two coming in 1995. That is a significant dilution of talent in a very short time frame: 4 teams in 2 years, 6 teams in 7 years. Meanwhile, the current NBA hasn't seen expansion in 20 years (and that was just one team), while also seeing a massive influx of international talent and even more talent with the G league. There's no comparison.
I get this logic, but I don't like the argument.
Teams and players didn't have to worry about the best player in the league back then just up and leaving their team. Sure there are no expansions these days, but what happened to CLE and TOR when Bosh and James bolted? They didn't exactly blow smoke up anyone's skirt the following years, and they were supposed to be the teams of the 2010's in the East :lol
Kawhii won a ring and left...
Kyrie demanded a trade from a team that made it to 3 strait finals and were the favorites to make it back.
The 2 best players of the generation have played on a combined 7 teams, and moved 8 different times...
The talent might be better right now, that is not arguable, but I don't like the argument because it's not like we don't experience something similar in the modern game.
Wolves, Pistons, Bulls, Pels, Kings, Hornets ect have all pretty much been trash for the entirety of the 2000's so far with a few decent seasons sprinkled in here and there. The idea that every game is a bloodbath in 2024 is simply not true. There are still 6 teams every year that are purposefully trying to lose games to tank. Something that didn't exist until Tim Duncan hit the draft boards. You see those old trades like how Celtics got McHale, Bulls Scotty, Lakers Magic, and players like Kobe and Franchise refusing to play for certain teams. Teams did NOT prioritize drafting and draft picks back then, and you saw those kind of lopsided trades all the time. The draft, tanking, and different ways of "competing" have changed. MJ didn't have to go against many teams that were purposefully trying to lose
Another point that I want to make, is your point has nothing to do with the argument. Unless MJ was beating those teams in the ECF and Finals, the bottom feeders don't really play a part in these stories. MJ was still smoking teams at the top of the conference with good talent. Reggies Pacers, Ewings Knicks, Paytons Sonics, Stock and Malone JAzz ect ect. These were still good teams reguardless of if the league had expansion drafts.
Go look up the standings from the 89/90 season. IT looks identical to what you would see now in the standings
Both conferences had teams that were trash and won 15-30 games, and then each conference had 4-5 really solid teams. Every team that made the playoffs that year did it with a winning record. The Atlanta Hawks with Dominique, Doc, and Moses only won 41games and didn't even make the playoffs
I see no real difference in talent between teams that is worthy of bring attention to it as compared to the era players like LeBron grew up in, beating teams led of 5'7 IT, Joakim Noah, and Demar Derozen. Rosters back then really only went 7 deep, something that you might also notice is similar to how teams today really only go 7-8 deep. Just because we know the names of dudes like Luc Longley and Steve Kerr, doesn't change the fact that MJ had to play with a bunch of those stiffs too
Yes the talent between teams 15-30 is better now than it was back then. On teams 1-14? You would really have to dig deep to prove that argument