trex_8063 wrote:Hal14 wrote:You can nit-pick if you'd like, but all I'm saying is Bird was going head to head on a nightly basis vs tougher competition during his 3 MVP years than Shaq did during his 3 title years. Not only was there more talent in the league from 83-86 than there was from 99-02, but there was 23 teams for Bird compared to 29 teams for Shaq, so there was not only more talent but there was a higher concentration of talent on each team.
fwiw, that growth from 23 to 29 teams is a growth of 26.1%.
The growth in the U.S. population between 1985 (middle of Bird's titles) and 2001 (middle of Shaq's titles) was
35.8% (from 240.5M to 326.7M); global population growth was a little less, though still about 28%, fwiw.
So theoretically, domestic population growth
ALONE (and the effect that has on player pool selectivity) more than compensates for the change in league size.
And that's before we consider other factors, such as:
a) the expansion of basketball popularity globally that occurred in those years [and the NBA's increasing willingness to recruit foreign players], and
b) the native rise in popularity (and the increasingly lucrative prospect of playing pro)
fueled by the Bird/Magic era and subsequently the Jordan era.
I mean, this is mostly indisputable stuff.
Do you agree the population expanded? I just cited the numbers, so hopefully the answer is yes.
Do you agree global popularity expanded in that time period? Looking at the global cultural phenomenon that Michael Jordan alone was, the insane international reaction to the original Dream Team, etc, I don't think one could
reasonably contend otherwise.
Do you agree domestic popularity has risen (due to effect of some of the very same reasons/people that triggered global popularity expansion)? Having come of age during the "Be Like Mike" era, I'm pretty comfortable saying the answer is yes.
Have true NBA prospect level athletes and players been more incentivized to pursue a potential career due to rising salary potential? I can look up numbers, but the glaring answer is yes.
Would you agree that all of these things would naturally contribute to a larger player pool? Well, if you opt to dig in and answer no, than I guess we're at an impasse [because quite obviously the answer is yes].
Is there a direct and exactly
linear relationship between player pool growth and the average quality of an NBA player? Well no, likely not.
But is the relationship at least
vaguely linear(ish), with some ups and downs? Most likely yes. Because bear in mind that while the AAU system has been cited as degrading the quality of the average AMERICAN prospect, the time period we're talking about with peak Shaq is sort of an in-between era; this AAU effect [which is itself debatable as to the degree to which it is relevant, btw] was only in the very very early stages.
So given the effective player pool the NBA was tapping between these two eras likely grew by AT LEAST 40-50% (and perhaps by more like 60-80%) due to these factors [with minimal "blunting" due to the AAU system], while the league only grew by 26.1%, how likely is it that the average quality of player DECLINED? Not very, imo.
Did the quality of the league dip a little circa-2000, relative to the mini-eras immediately around it? Yes, I'll agree it did. But bear in mind Shaq also played (in his prime) in the early-mid 90s, and well into the mid-00's (when things picked back up), both clearly [to me] MORE competitive eras than the mid-80s.
Hal14 wrote:I know you're saying Kobe was not a top 2 player in the league yet, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. IMO Kobe was arguably a top 2 player in the league each of those 3 seasons that him and Shaq won a title together.
Yeah. We'll have to agree to disagree there, especially on '00 [by a lot]. Aside from not feeling that way at all at the time, I thankfully have the FULL balance of evidence on my side here, so I don't have much anxiety about disagreeing.
So we're clear, you're saying the guy who was:
*12th in the league in PER
**8th in WS/48
***12th in BPM
****
124th in PI RAPM (and only 35th in NPI too)
*****while being outside the top 10 in mpg, too (as these are all rate metrics), and missing 16 games besides
******and who only got All-NBA 2nd Team (so deemed not even top 2 at his position) and finished
12th in the MVP vote.....
.....was actually the 2nd-best player in the league? Uphill battle on that notion, at any rate.
Hal14 wrote:And in terms of MVP voting - I mentioned this earlier in the thread but it wasn't until the 2000s when it started to get really sketchy. .
This doesn't change anything about what I'm saying in terms of comparing Bird to Shaq by way of MVP awards (in fact, you're sort of [inadvertently] SUPPORTING the notion that myself and others have been harping on): we're not questioning whether Bird deserved his 3 MVP's [at least I'm not]; we're saying Shaq likely deserved more than 1 (but didn't get it because [as you say] the voting was often sketchy).
This notion that "more people in the world = better NBA competition needs to stop" One thing does not necessarily mean the other.
Based on your logic, every single profession in existence.....there are more high quality people at each profession...simply because an increase in the population.
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that player quality in the MLB in the last 10 years is the highest it's ever been. After all, higher population, better player quality.
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that player quality in the NFL in the last 10 years is the highest it's ever been. After all, higher population, better player quality.
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that the movie industry in the last 10 years is the best it's ever been. After all, higher population, more of a pool of actors and directors to choose from, so the movies must be better, right?
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that the print media industry in the last 10 years is the best it's ever been. After all, higher population, means more potential news reporters, means better print media, right?
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that music industry in the last 10 years is the best it's ever been. After all, higher population, means more potential music artists, so it must be better today, right?
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that coaching in the NBA is the best it's ever been. After all, higher population, that must mean a greater pool of NBA head coaches to choose from, which must mean the coaching is better.
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that officiating in the NBA in the last 10 years is the highest it's ever been. After all, higher population, means greater pool of refs to choose from, so surely that means we're witnessing the best refs of all time right here.
Based on your logic, let's just make a blanket statement and say that the restaurant industry in the last 10 years is the best it's ever been. After all, higher population, means more people are cooking food and opening restaurants, so that must mean the food/restaurants are better than ever.
It doesn't work that way!
Just because more people are doing something does not mean they are doing it better. In the 2000s we saw the amount of AAU basketball teams explode. Did this mean the players were better? Nope. Instead of AAU being for a select few, the best of the best...the best playing against the best, and therefore raising the bar...you had 1 top team full of top talent from a particular city or region and that was it.
But in the 2000s it blew up, now every kid in the US who could put a pair of sneakers on was playing for an AAU team. This watered down the talent in a huge way. Instead of every AAU game being a battle against top notch talent, it became a situation where 90% of AAU games were a joke. Not only that, but the more AAU teams that were created, all of these teams needed games to play. Teams were playing 3 to 6 games every weekend...how many practices? 1 or 2 per week, if that. There was a huge increase in AAU teams but not an increase of qualified coaches to coach these teams. Players weren't getting better. It used to be that top players would spend their summers in the gym, working on their games, practicing, working on the fundamentals, doing skill work, hitting the weight room, playing a smaller number of games and when they did play games it was always against top notch competition. Hitting the weight room. In the 2000s? They spend their summers playing in games, way too many games, many of which are against mediocre competition with AAU programs and basketball facilities making a bunch of $ while some short fat 11 year old shoots it from half court.
Not to mention that yes, greater population in the 2000s, more people playing basketball but not playing the right way. Just look at the And-1 mix tape tour. All of those guys were playing the wrong way. Instead of working on their bounce passes, they worked on bouncing the ball off the defenders forehead. Instead of working on their mid range pull-up jumper, they pull up from half court and throw an alley oop pass off the ceiling.
More people in the world in the 2000s, but look at the rise of tech. Many people in the 2000s aren't trying to go pro in basketball...they're more realistic, knowing that the odds of them making it to the NBA are so slim that they mine as well hit the books and become the founder of a tech company instead...or just a marketing director at a tech company, or just the manager of a supermarket. Bottom line, even though there's more people in the US over the past 10 years, that doesn't mean more quality basketball players. The amount of new jobs for people to earn a living doing something other than playing in the NBA has grown tremendously in the past 15 years.
Not to mention that in the 2000s you also had the rise of the X games, and many other sports other than basketball which have grown tremendously in popularity. Lacrosse especially has blown up in the US, and more athletes in the 2000s have chosen to do things like snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, body building, etc. There's way more options for sports in the 2000s outside of just basketball...and there's also way more options for a career in general in the 2000s besides playing pro sports.
Not to mention that in 2000s you also had the rise of video games, the internet, smart phones, tablets, devices, social media. All of these digital things, so many things for a person to do and be consumed with. When back in the day, there was nothing else for a kid to do besides go outside, shoot hoops and try to find a pickup game.
You also bring up the popularity of basketball leading to global expansion as a reason for 2000s basketball being more competitive. This is also a myth. Let's look at the 2019-2020 season for example, since that's the last season that has occurred so by your logic with there would be more international players than ever and better competition than ever since the population keeps growing and we have another year of basketball gaining popularity overseas. Yet, the Lakers win the title with no foreign players. The Eastern conference champs Heat? They had 1 role player from Canada, whose contributions were highly inconsistent.
Other than Luka Doncic, Nikola Jokic and Kristaps Porzingis, how many other true high impact international guys are there?
Compare that to 89-90. You had Hakeem, Ewing, Sarunas Marčiulionis, Drazen Petrovic, Detlef Schrempf, Vlade Divac, Dominique Wilkins, Rik Smits, et. for international players.
