Rank Decades

[SNPA]

Rank decades, strongest to weakest.

I’ll put my bias upfront, I have the 50 & 70’s as the weakest.

[eminence]

Largely just in reverse order, with the exception of the 70s likely being weaker on average than the 60s due to expansion. 60s vs 80s might be the most interesting discussion point. I think I'd favor the early 60s over the 80s, but the late 60s were suffering significant inflation as well, I'll go 80s, but a pretty close decision. By the 90s/00s I think the game had gone international enough to clearly overpower league expansion.

1. 2020s
2. 2010s
3. 2000s
4. 1990s
5. 1980s
6. 1960s
7. 1970s
8. 1950s
9. 1940s

[SHAQ32]

Load management alone keeps the 2020s from being #1.

[penbeast0]

I would tend to agree on the problems of load management and stars missing so many games due to protocols though with the expectation that this becomes less of a problem and and 2020s will end up being stronger than the 2010s. But I don't think it's there yet.

2010s
2020s
. . .
2000s
. . .
1990s the trend toward isolation offense led to some flashy star seasons but were not productive to developing good, well rounded, basketball players pushing one-on-one skills more than most decades. The beginning of the great international migration is in this era but they aren't making the kind of impact they have in the upcoming century.

1980s/1960s -- the 80s were the era of the superteams with expansion still wrecking havoc on the lower half of the league. European stars were not yet making much impact. I would say the early 1960s concentrated so much talent into so few teams that top to bottom, the average team was stronger than the early 80s despite the Celtic domination. I would say the second half of the 80s overcame this concentration effect (and the late 60s started the expansion era) and were stronger than the 60s.
. . .
The 1970s were massively weakened by expansion but that wasn't the only factor weakening play. Player mobility, jumping leagues or threatening to jump leagues, created a situation where more players seemed to be playing for the contract and this was exacerbated by the epidemic of cocaine use. On the flip side of this issue, PEDs (particularly steroids) and the much wider use of weight work and stretching contributed to much more athletic players and a less ground bound style of play. In the 60s, it was basically just a few superstars who were dunking (like 3 point shooting in the 80s/90s), by the mid 70s, it was the norm rather than the exception.
...
The slow integration of the league weakened the player pool. Stars were getting drafted into military service. And stylistically, there were still players using the two handed set shot and the running hook as their go to moves with leaguewide a lot of missed shots and slower stronger bigger bodies to wrestle around underneath the basket for all those rebounds.

[Doctor MJ]

Largely just in reverse order, with the exception of the 70s likely being weaker on average than the 60s due to expansion. 60s vs 80s might be the most interesting discussion point. I think I'd favor the early 60s over the 80s, but the late 60s were suffering significant inflation as well, I'll go 80s, but a pretty close decision. By the 90s/00s I think the game had gone international enough to clearly overpower league expansion.

1. 2020s
2. 2010s
3. 2000s
4. 1990s
5. 1980s
6. 1960s
7. 1970s
8. 1950s
9. 1940s

Yeah, I'd say that's my list too. Basically, every decade gets stronger unless something noteworthy and negative happens, and that can move something down one spot.

[lessthanjake]

I think reverse chronological order is roughly-speaking right, with the adjustment that the 1970s is below the 1960s due to the ABA and whatnot. I also have a gut inclination to put the 2000s below the 1990s and maybe the 1980s, but I don’t really have any reason for that except that I had a distinct feeling at the time that the talent level of the league was a bit lower than before. And I still do feel that way looking back on it, but it’s probably just a weird personal bias.

Load management in the 2020s is a real issue, but at the same time I think the talent level of the league nowadays is enormous—in part because how how thoroughly international the game has become. So I still have this current decade at the top.

[prolific passer]

From a fans/ratings and marketing standpoint as well as reviving the NBA and taking it to new heights nationally and globally. 80s and 90s are the top 2 in any order imo.

[penbeast0]

OR 50s/60s. Taking a startup from zero to 20 is more significant in many ways than going from 50-80 (see NBL, ABA, etc.) and the sixties started with televised play, expanding into the black community in significant ways, and making the sports conversation in America about the big 3 team sports (boxing still being significant enough if individual sports considered). 90s more than the 80s made the NBA a worldwide brand.

[SHAQ32]

. . .
2000s
. . .
1990s the trend toward isolation offense led to some flashy star seasons but were not productive to developing good, well rounded, basketball players pushing one-on-one skills more than most decades. The beginning of the great international migration is in this era but they aren't making the kind of impact they have in the upcoming century.

I agree with your assessment of the 90s, but at the same time don't see the 2000s being ranked higher. Even with the expansion teams, there was more competition in the league as a whole in the 90s, especially in the eastern conference. Conferences were more balanced.

[MMyhre]

I would tend to agree on the problems of load management and stars missing so many games due to protocols though with the expectation that this becomes less of a problem and and 2020s will end up being stronger than the 2010s. But I don't think it's there yet.

2010s
2020s
. . .
2000s
. . .
1990s the trend toward isolation offense led to some flashy star seasons but were not productive to developing good, well rounded, basketball players pushing one-on-one skills more than most decades. The beginning of the great international migration is in this era but they aren't making the kind of impact they have in the upcoming century.

1980s/1960s -- the 80s were the era of the superteams with expansion still wrecking havoc on the lower half of the league. European stars were not yet making much impact. I would say the early 1960s concentrated so much talent into so few teams that top to bottom, the average team was stronger than the early 80s despite the Celtic domination. I would say the second half of the 80s overcame this concentration effect (and the late 60s started the expansion era) and were stronger than the 60s.
. . .
The 1970s were massively weakened by expansion but that wasn't the only factor weakening play. Player mobility, jumping leagues or threatening to jump leagues, created a situation where more players seemed to be playing for the contract and this was exacerbated by the epidemic of cocaine use. On the flip side of this issue, PEDs (particularly steroids) and the much wider use of weight work and stretching contributed to much more athletic players and a less ground bound style of play. In the 60s, it was basically just a few superstars who were dunking (like 3 point shooting in the 80s/90s), by the mid 70s, it was the norm rather than the exception.
...
The slow integration of the league weakened the player pool. Stars were getting drafted into military service. And stylistically, there were still players using the two handed set shot and the running hook as their go to moves with leaguewide a lot of missed shots and slower stronger bigger bodies to wrestle around underneath the basket for all those rebounds.

Can you give a source on the PED, weight work and stretching part of the 1970's? I am an athletic coach, so I value athletic history/evolution/sources of training ++ more than others. It's fascinating to get validation from some of the stuff we do today, from cases back in the 1970's and beyond. Shows how far one can go with intuition and a smart, practical approach.

[penbeast0]

More personal memory of when those things came into the conversation since I was a teenager in that era. I could probably find quotes from the 60s about how big men shouldn't lift for fear of becoming "muscle bound."

[ty 4191]

It's my current belief that the 1970's was a weak decade, comparatively. You had the ABA with ~25% of the best players in the NBA by the mid 70's, and, the league expanding from 9 teams in 65'-66'' to 22 in 76'-77'. There's just no way, that I can envision, that basketball expanded as much in popularity, scope, player development and recruitment in 12 years to keep up with that kind of drastic expansion.'

Here's how expansion teams fared their during each of their (respective) first 5 season in the league, along with footnotes about the playoffs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KfFmPYlS0Mx00w0hri6LoGASkES3DWfBY25Q8vhHWoA/edit#gid=0

What are people's thoughts on the topic of expansion and league depth/quality?

[70sFan]

It's my current belief that the 1970's was a weak decade, comparatively. You had the ABA with ~25% of the best players in the NBA by the mid 70's, and, the league expanding from 9 teams in 65'-66'' to 22 in 76'-77'. There's just no way, that I can envision, that basketball expanded as much in popularity, scope, player development and recruitment in 12 years to keep up with that kind of drastic expansion.'

Here's how expansion teams fared their during each of their (respective) first 5 season in the league, along with footnotes about the playoffs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KfFmPYlS0Mx00w0hri6LoGASkES3DWfBY25Q8vhHWoA/edit#gid=0

What are people's thoughts on the topic of expansion and league depth/quality?

Do you use the same criteria for the 1960s, when:

- the league expanded from 8 to 14 teams,
- the league wasn't integrated at the beginning of the decade,
- the ABA existed for the last two seasons of the decade?

[ty 4191]

Do you use the same criteria for the 1960s, when:

- the league expanded from 8 to 14 teams,
- the league wasn't integrated at the beginning of the decade,
- the ABA existed for the last two seasons of the decade?

I do. Although, the ABA was a joke the first several years. Look at the rosters. It only likely caught up to the NBA (roughly) in quality by 73 or 74-76.

[70sFan]

Do you use the same criteria for the 1960s, when:

- the league expanded from 8 to 14 teams,
- the league wasn't integrated at the beginning of the decade,
- the ABA existed for the last two seasons of the decade?

I do. Although, the ABA was a joke the first several years. Look at the rosters. It only likely caught up to the NBA (roughly) in quality by 73 or 74-76.

So why do you vote for Wilt from the start?

[ty 4191]

Do you use the same criteria for the 1960s, when:

- the league expanded from 8 to 14 teams,
- the league wasn't integrated at the beginning of the decade,
- the ABA existed for the last two seasons of the decade?

I do. Although, the ABA was a joke the first several years. Look at the rosters. It only likely caught up to the NBA (roughly) in quality by 73 or 74-76.

So why do you vote for Wilt from the start?

Because his greatest years came in a 9-12 team NBA, unlike Kareem, a 14-22 team league.

[70sFan]

I do. Although, the ABA was a joke the first several years. Look at the rosters. It only likely caught up to the NBA (roughly) in quality by 73 or 74-76.

So why do you vote for Wilt from the start?

Because his greatest years came in a 9-12 team NBA, unlike Kareem, a 14-22 team league.

But you still ignore lack of international players, second league and only the beginning of integration. You also ignore that Kareem played more than 2 decades, you basically suggest that the league was powerful in the 1960s and then didn't become strong again until 2000s. I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

[ty 4191]

So why do you vote for Wilt from the start?

Because his greatest years came in a 9-12 team NBA, unlike Kareem, a 14-22 team league.

But you still ignore lack of international players, second league and only the beginning of integration. You also ignore that Kareem played more than 2 decades, you basically suggest that the league was powerful in the 1960s and then didn't become strong again until 2000s. I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

You know all about Wilt's ridiculous size, speed (esp early career), strength, agility, coordination, overall athleticism (for all sports, not just basketball, (he dominated other sports, also, anything he tried seriously).

I have serious concerns for a ton of guys from that era (most of them) competing in today's NBA, however, I have none for Wilt.

He transcends his sport and his era. The legend far supersedes the myths about him.

[70sFan]

Because his greatest years came in a 9-12 team NBA, unlike Kareem, a 14-22 team league.

But you still ignore lack of international players, second league and only the beginning of integration. You also ignore that Kareem played more than 2 decades, you basically suggest that the league was powerful in the 1960s and then didn't become strong again until 2000s. I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

You know all about Wilt's ridiculous size, speed (esp early career), strength, agility, coordination, overall athleticism (for all sports, not just basketball, (he dominated other sports, also, anything he tried seriously).

I have serious concerns for a ton of guys from that era (most of them) competing in today's NBA, however, I have none for Wilt.

He transcends his sport and his era. The legend far supersedes the myths about him.

I actually agree with that, but I feel the same about Russell and Kareem.

[penbeast0]

So why do you vote for Wilt from the start?

Because his greatest years came in a 9-12 team NBA, unlike Kareem, a 14-22 team league.

But you still ignore lack of international players, second league and only the beginning of integration. You also ignore that Kareem played more than 2 decades, you basically suggest that the league was powerful in the 1960s and then didn't become strong again until 2000s. I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

Early ABA didn't take many quality players away from the NBA, basically Rick Barry and NBA 1st rounder Mel Daniels early, then Zelmo Beaty and Billy Cunningham as they started to compete. Most of their stars were guys who had been banned from the NBA (Hawkins, Roger Brown, Doug Moe) or guys that they discovered who the NBA hadn't given much of a chance to.

The ridiculous levels of expansion were an attempt to drive the ABA out by preempting markets; the owners found they had a taste for the cash infusion and it continued into the 80s to a lesser degree but so did the growth of boomers into NBA aged talent so by the mid 80s, the average NBA team was probably surpassing a pre-expansion team from the mid 60s. The 90s were probably stronger than the 80s or 60s but not by a huge degree; the international players are the huge difference makers that make this century's NBA deeper than last century's NBA.

As for integration; it's a real thing but, especially at the top where the differences matter a lot, it isn't hard to realize that someone is a special talent and bring in the Wilt/Russell/Baylor types as they did by the early 60s (but not the 50s). There was still a tendency to have the 11th and 12th man be white guys to make the teams look more like the fans but that has little effect on quality of play would be my guess. You can see it in the Globies. The 50s Globetrotters were at least as competitive with the NBA as the ABA, though undersized (when Wilt wasn't on the team). By the 60s, the Globetrotter stars were no longer guys who could have played in the NBA. Center Meadowlark Lemon was only 6-3; they were more entertainers and less basketball players.