With the insane level of talent in the league right now are we likely to see fewer dominant and fewer really bad teams?

[AEnigma]

Strong strong strong disagree. You think someone averaging 24/9/7 would not be cited obsessively? George McGinnis won an MVP doing that!

I mean, you're proving my point - nobody remembers McGinnis now, outside of hardcore NBA history fans. Nobody says that the 1970s was full of talent, because McGinnis played in that era.

Centre play has maintained well. Maybe could argue declined depending on your framing. But pretty much every other position has seen huge leaps in quality of play. I like Gus Williams a lot, but he was probably the second best guard in the league at his peak, and I do not see him coming close to that level today. Bob Dandridge was one of the top forwards; again, like him as a player, but certainly not today.

That's not what I'm arguing though. it seems that you miss my point.

Siakam is going to be easily forgotten in 20 years. Hell he is forgotten now and he won a title. How many people still remember and talk about Vin Baker, Steve Francis, Alex English, Glen Rice, or Danny Manning? Not many. Tom Chambers was a star player and he is forgotten outside of one dunk.

That's my point exactly.

Which takes us right back to:

So what is the relevance? Fine, the average casual fan memory is short and only can keep a few key players in their mind. But seems meaningful how high the calibre of “fringe-all-star” is compared to eras past, even if they ultimately fail to stick in the collective memory because of how memory works.

To which you replied:

The relevance is that we always forget how good fringe all-stars were in older eras.

I got your point; you ignored mine. I am saying Siakam is a better player than George McGinnis. Whether or not he is remembered is irrelevant to that idea, and irrelevant to the thread topic.

So in talking past the OP about how people are remembering players, you are either disagreeing that the league is more talented now, or you are just taking us down a purposeless tangent no one was discussing.

[falcolombardi]

Siakam is going to be easily forgotten in 20 years. Hell he is forgotten now and he won a title. How many people still remember and talk about Vin Baker, Steve Francis, Alex English, Glen Rice, or Danny Manning? Not many. Tom Chambers was a star player and he is forgotten outside of one dunk.

That's my point exactly.

Surr but why does it matter how many players get remembered when comparing which era has more talent?

[70sFan]

I got your point; you ignored mine. I am saying Siakam is a better player than George McGinnis. Whether or not he is remembered is irrelevant to that idea, and irrelevant to the thread topic.

It's very relevant, because people have in mind how good of a player Siakam is right now. Nobody will ever bring up George McGinnis as the proof of the league being talented back in his prime. When people discuss the 1960s, they only mention top 6 players, basically nobody remembers how good of a player Connie Hawkins or Terry Dischinger were.

About McGinnis vs Siakam, I am not that sure who is better, it's open to debate in my opinion.

So in talking past the OP about how people are remembering players, you are either disagreeing that the league is more talented now, or you are just taking us down a purposeless tangent no one was discussing.

I don't disagree that the league is more talented now, but the degree of the difference is distorted by the fact that people know and remember basically all top 20 players right now. Most NBA fans won't be able to give you even a top 5 from a random 1960s or 1970s season. You may think it doesn't matter, but it really does.

[70sFan]

Siakam is going to be easily forgotten in 20 years. Hell he is forgotten now and he won a title. How many people still remember and talk about Vin Baker, Steve Francis, Alex English, Glen Rice, or Danny Manning? Not many. Tom Chambers was a star player and he is forgotten outside of one dunk.

That's my point exactly.

Surr but why does it matter how many players get remembered when comparing which era has more talent?

If I say that the league was extremely talented in the late 1970s because we had players like Marques Johnson, Paul Westphal, Gus Williams, George Gervin, Bob Dandridge Bob McAdoo and David Thompson back then, most people would have no idea what does it really mean. adree mentioned players Booker, Mitchell, Brown, Morant and Siakam. People know who they are and understand they are talented. That's not the case with the older players.

It doesn't mean that the talent isn't higher, but it means that the perception can be distorted.

[falcolombardi]

That's my point exactly.

Surr but why does it matter how many players get remembered when comparing which era has more talent?

If I say that the league was extremely talented in the late 1970s because we had players like Marques Johnson, Paul Westphal, Gus Williams, George Gervin, Bob Dandridge Bob McAdoo and David Thompson back then, most people would have no idea what does it really mean. adree mentioned players Booker, Mitchell, Brown, Morant and Siakam. People know who they are and understand they are talented. That's not the case with the older players.

It doesn't mean that the talent isn't higher, but it means that the perception can be distorted.

Makes sense

Do you think this board underates those players? (Mcadoo, thompson, marques johnson)

[penbeast0]

They probably underrate their peaks because substance and personal problems derailed all three into relatively short prime/careers.

I'm more impressed with the top 4 of the 60s plus they put up their much of their numbers in the pre-expansion era which I think is significant for the next 20-30 years as a factor.

[OhayoKD]

That's my point exactly.

Surr but why does it matter how many players get remembered when comparing which era has more talent?

If I say that the league was extremely talented in the late 1970s because we had players like Marques Johnson, Paul Westphal, Gus Williams, George Gervin, Bob Dandridge Bob McAdoo and David Thompson back then, most people would have no idea what does it really mean. adree mentioned players Booker, Mitchell, Brown, Morant and Siakam. People know who they are and understand they are talented. That's not the case with the older players.

It doesn't mean that the talent isn't higher, but it means that the perception can be distorted.

Memory is more a function of relative to era talent and recency than some sophisticaed appraisal of how good a player is in a vacuum.

Don't think it would really affect how people perceive siakim vs mcginnis. Either you know he exists or you don't.

[HeartBreakKid]

Cmon it's just because we're familiar with players who are playing now. There is nothing special about Siakam lol, no one will care about him 10 years from now much less 20.

[homecourtloss]

There was some news in the last few days how the most teams ever are around .500 at the quarter point of the season. It's definitely reasonable to see more parity happening in the upcoming years. The middle of the pack will likely be more bunched up and play-off spots are more hotly contested.

However there will still be outliers. Last year there were 5 teams with 25 wins or less, while the top record was held by the Suns with 64 wins. This season so far there are once again 5 teams on pace for 25 wins or less (Magic, Spurs, Pistons, Hornets, Rockets), while the Celtics are on pace for a better record than the Suns last year with the Bucks also on 60+ win pace.

A lot of this also has to do with the parity that’s brought about with high volume three-point shooting. In the regular season, and I think in the postseason we’ll see it more and more as well, star players might not have the impact they once did. With teams regularly taking 40+ 3 pointers a game, the variance on open shots is determining games. Two more made open threes by a teams and two misses by the opponent leads a 12 point swing, a margin that encompasses about 80% of all games.

[70sFan]

Surr but why does it matter how many players get remembered when comparing which era has more talent?

If I say that the league was extremely talented in the late 1970s because we had players like Marques Johnson, Paul Westphal, Gus Williams, George Gervin, Bob Dandridge Bob McAdoo and David Thompson back then, most people would have no idea what does it really mean. adree mentioned players Booker, Mitchell, Brown, Morant and Siakam. People know who they are and understand they are talented. That's not the case with the older players.

It doesn't mean that the talent isn't higher, but it means that the perception can be distorted.

Makes sense

Do you think this board underates those players? (Mcadoo, thompson, marques johnson)

Some do, others don't. Most people don't have a good picture of how they played, even on this board. That's my point.

[Texas Chuck]

70sfan is nailing it. We know all the players in the league right now so fringe all-NBA players are easy to get super excited about. After all these are in fact very talented players. But players like this have existed in every season, the numbers are inflated a bit right now because we are in an offensive era, but relatively speaking these players aren't superior to the players who have been listed throughout the thread.

There are more compelling reasons why we aren't seeing as many dominant regular season teams than listing some names and thinking the league is significantly more top heavy now.

[Colbinii]

70sfan is nailing it. We know all the players in the league right now so fringe all-NBA players are easy to get super excited about. After all these are in fact very talented players. But players like this have existed in every season, the numbers are inflated a bit right now because we are in an offensive era, but relatively speaking these players aren't superior to the players who have been listed throughout the thread.

There are more compelling reasons why we aren't seeing as many dominant regular season teams than listing some names and thinking the league is significantly more top heavy now.

Correct, the takeaway here should be "There are 15-20 players as good or better than Peak Marques Johnson".

There are currently 16 players eclipsing Marques Johnson's career high in OBPM. There are 12 players greater than or equal to his career high in WS/48.

In 1979, 13 players posted a BPM > 3. In 2023 (so far), 29 players have posted a BPM > 3 and in 2022 this number ended at 31 players. The talent has never been this deep for "All-star level players [Using the BPM Definition]"--with 18 players eclipsing a 4.0 BPM this year while only 6 eclipsed this mark in 1979.

If Anything, Marques Johnson will be more memorable due to him being in the Top 1% of players in the NBA in 1979 while Siakam is only in the Top 3-5% of players in the NBA.

[Statlanta]

I don’t think there’s insane talent just the top players playing less and being injured more is letting the middle class catch up with their impact.

There’s definitely no top 5 GOAT level player in his prime right now. How many years can you say that for

[colts18]

70sfan is nailing it. We know all the players in the league right now so fringe all-NBA players are easy to get super excited about. After all these are in fact very talented players. But players like this have existed in every season, the numbers are inflated a bit right now because we are in an offensive era, but relatively speaking these players aren't superior to the players who have been listed throughout the thread.

There are more compelling reasons why we aren't seeing as many dominant regular season teams than listing some names and thinking the league is significantly more top heavy now.

In 1979, 13 players posted a BPM > 3. In 2023 (so far), 29 players have posted a BPM > 3 and in 2022 this number ended at 31 players. The talent has never been this deep for "All-star level players [Using the BPM Definition]"--with 18 players eclipsing a 4.0 BPM this year while only 6 eclipsed this mark in 1979.

You are proving Texas Chuck's points. The players aren't that much better. The numbers are higher because of stat inflation.

[Colbinii]

70sfan is nailing it. We know all the players in the league right now so fringe all-NBA players are easy to get super excited about. After all these are in fact very talented players. But players like this have existed in every season, the numbers are inflated a bit right now because we are in an offensive era, but relatively speaking these players aren't superior to the players who have been listed throughout the thread.

There are more compelling reasons why we aren't seeing as many dominant regular season teams than listing some names and thinking the league is significantly more top heavy now.

In 1979, 13 players posted a BPM > 3. In 2023 (so far), 29 players have posted a BPM > 3 and in 2022 this number ended at 31 players. The talent has never been this deep for "All-star level players [Using the BPM Definition]"--with 18 players eclipsing a 4.0 BPM this year while only 6 eclipsed this mark in 1979.

You are proving Texas Chuck's points. The players aren't that much better. The numbers are higher because of stat inflation.

I am agreeing with everyone in this thread. Did you even read my post or understand what I was attempting to convey?

I started off my post in response to Texas Chuck by saying "Correct". Of course I agreed with him.

[Heej]

The clusters will be looser. Like the top teams that are legit contenders are probably increasing. And then playoff contenders are more filled out with competition. But at the bottom there's gonna be a weak ass team that's getting smoked like the Spurs and the other weak teams still gonna be a challenge for most squads on any given night given full health.

Think there's just more quality number 2 and 3 guys and the talent coming in is revolutionary. 2025 could look different for sure. Give the African leagues 10 years to develop and you're gonna have a whole geographic pool to draft talent from. It's gonna cycle back and become an expanded version of the Russell era NBA where he was playing like 70% of games against Hall of Fame level players at his position and whatnot

Also opens up the chances for 2 transcendent talents to end up together, like Brown and Tatum could become; so I imagine there's greater odds that kind of legendary chance pairing happens