2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[migya]

Is Tatum the Karl Malone of his position? But in an alt universe where Jazz didn't play MJ.

Malone was not the best scorer or flashiest player of his generation, but he put up his points consistently, and he lacked weaknesses in that he was good defender, passer and fit well spacing wise. It's difficult to find another established superstar who was as well rounded without being more dynamic in one area, for example West is well rounded, but is arguably a more dynamic scorer than either, same for KG's defense, and then players like Billups, were not considered top 5 MVP type of superstars. Like Malone, if Tatum stays healthy and produces into his mid 30s he may end up with a high total points rank just by pounding out 27ppg seasons with less than <10 games missed.

If Malone had 3/4 of the talent on his team that Tatum has on his, he'd be in the goat debate because of winning a few championships.

Yeah in a much weaker era he definitely would have.

No in his era he would have, even with all the alltime greats there was at that time.

[Doctor MJ]

What stood out for me was the real dip in draft class quality in the 90-93 which I don't really understand. Basketball's popularity was steadily improving throughout the 70s/80s and salaries in the NBA had closed in on NFL/MLB. Even when I set a lower threshold of 20 the drop-off is appreciable.

This stat isn't perfect but the cumulative nature of it makes it a decent proxy.

1990-93

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player              VORP
1. Shaquille O'Neal         75.5
2. Gary Payton              62.5
3. Chris Webber             42.1
4. Dikembe Mutombo          33.9
5. Terrell Brandon          30.3
6. Sam Cassell              28.8
7. Alonzo Mourning          27.4
8. Toni Kukoč               27.2
9. Anfernee Hardaway        26.9
10. Robert Horry            26.4
11. Steve Smith             24.6
12. Derrick Coleman         22.3
13. Larry Johnson           22
14. Kenny Anderson          21.9
15. Latrell Sprewell        21
16. Doug Christie           20.7
      Average               32.1

1984- 1987

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player                VORP
1. Michael Jordan             116.1
2. John Stockton              106.5
3. Karl Malone                99
4. David Robinson             81.9
5. Charles Barkley            80.5
6. Hakeem Olajuwon            74.2
7. Reggie Miller              66.1
8. Scottie Pippen             63.2
9. Patrick Ewing              50.1
10. Terry Porter              43.3
11. Jeff Hornacek             42.1
12. Chris Mullin              41.6
13. Mark Jackson              37.5
14. Kevin Johnson             37.3
15. Horace Grant              33
16. Detlef Schrempf           32.4
17. Mark Price                31.1
18. Ron Harper                30.3
19. Sam Perkins               29.1
20. Alvin Robertson           28.3
21. Nate McMillan             27.2
22. Joe Dumars                25.3
23. Brad Daugherty            21.3
24. Dennis Rodman             21
25. Derrick McKey             20.4
     Average                  49.6


1996-1999

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

    Player              VORP
1. Tim Duncan           91.1
2. Dirk Nowitzki        84.8
3. Kobe Bryant          80.1
4. Paul Pierce          65.5
5. Vince Carter         57.9
6. Ray Allen            57.6
7. Tracy McGrady        55.7
8. Allen Iverson        49.6
9. Steve Nash           48.2
10.Manu Ginóbili        47.6
11. Shawn Marion        47.6
12. Chauncey Billups    43.5
13. Andrei Kirilenko    41.7
14. Jason Terry         37.4
15. Elton Brand         37.3
16. Andre Miller        33.4
17. Rashard Lewis       33.1
18. Baron Davis         33.1
19. Lamar Odom          31.4
20. Marcus Camby        31.3
21. Stephon Marbury     30.7
22. Peja Stojaković     26.2
23. Metta World Peace   25.4
24. Antawn Jamison      24.5
25. Mike Bibby          23.8
26. Steve Francis       22.7
27. Shareef Abdur-Rahim 21.9
    Average             43.8

I think the dip you're talking about is definitely a real thing, and I'd point to the fact the depth is so much lower too as shown in those lists of yours as evidence that it was more than just a shortage of superstars.

My feeling at the time - which still guides a lot of my thought here - was that these draft prospects were regularly coming in and disappointing relative to the hype, even the ones who came out best in class.

There were injury issues and there were attitude issues, but in terms of a 3rd factor, I feel like this next group was actually biased toward chucking - shooting shots beyond one's capabilities merit - in the wake of Jordan. It kinda felt like guys were only taking a fraction of the message they should have from the previous generation's best.

[sp6r=underrated]

What stood out for me was the real dip in draft class quality in the 90-93 which I don't really understand. Basketball's popularity was steadily improving throughout the 70s/80s and salaries in the NBA had closed in on NFL/MLB. Even when I set a lower threshold of 20 the drop-off is appreciable.

This stat isn't perfect but the cumulative nature of it makes it a decent proxy.

1990-93

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player              VORP
1. Shaquille O'Neal         75.5
2. Gary Payton              62.5
3. Chris Webber             42.1
4. Dikembe Mutombo          33.9
5. Terrell Brandon          30.3
6. Sam Cassell              28.8
7. Alonzo Mourning          27.4
8. Toni Kukoč               27.2
9. Anfernee Hardaway        26.9
10. Robert Horry            26.4
11. Steve Smith             24.6
12. Derrick Coleman         22.3
13. Larry Johnson           22
14. Kenny Anderson          21.9
15. Latrell Sprewell        21
16. Doug Christie           20.7
      Average               32.1

1984- 1987

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player                VORP
1. Michael Jordan             116.1
2. John Stockton              106.5
3. Karl Malone                99
4. David Robinson             81.9
5. Charles Barkley            80.5
6. Hakeem Olajuwon            74.2
7. Reggie Miller              66.1
8. Scottie Pippen             63.2
9. Patrick Ewing              50.1
10. Terry Porter              43.3
11. Jeff Hornacek             42.1
12. Chris Mullin              41.6
13. Mark Jackson              37.5
14. Kevin Johnson             37.3
15. Horace Grant              33
16. Detlef Schrempf           32.4
17. Mark Price                31.1
18. Ron Harper                30.3
19. Sam Perkins               29.1
20. Alvin Robertson           28.3
21. Nate McMillan             27.2
22. Joe Dumars                25.3
23. Brad Daugherty            21.3
24. Dennis Rodman             21
25. Derrick McKey             20.4
     Average                  49.6


1996-1999

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

    Player              VORP
1. Tim Duncan           91.1
2. Dirk Nowitzki        84.8
3. Kobe Bryant          80.1
4. Paul Pierce          65.5
5. Vince Carter         57.9
6. Ray Allen            57.6
7. Tracy McGrady        55.7
8. Allen Iverson        49.6
9. Steve Nash           48.2
10.Manu Ginóbili        47.6
11. Shawn Marion        47.6
12. Chauncey Billups    43.5
13. Andrei Kirilenko    41.7
14. Jason Terry         37.4
15. Elton Brand         37.3
16. Andre Miller        33.4
17. Rashard Lewis       33.1
18. Baron Davis         33.1
19. Lamar Odom          31.4
20. Marcus Camby        31.3
21. Stephon Marbury     30.7
22. Peja Stojaković     26.2
23. Metta World Peace   25.4
24. Antawn Jamison      24.5
25. Mike Bibby          23.8
26. Steve Francis       22.7
27. Shareef Abdur-Rahim 21.9
    Average             43.8

I think the dip you're talking about is definitely a real thing, and I'd point to the fact the depth is so much lower too as shown in those lists of yours as evidence that it was more than just a shortage of superstars.

My feeling at the time - which still guides a lot of my thought here - was that these draft prospects were regularly coming in and disappointing relative to the hype, even the ones who came out best in class.

There were injury issues and there were attitude issues, but in terms of a 3rd factor, I feel like this next group was actually biased toward chucking - shooting shots beyond one's capabilities merit - in the wake of Jordan. It kinda felt like guys were only taking a fraction of the message they should have from the previous generation's best.

All good points especially about the depth but I'll focus on paragraph 3.

I think you're probably right that a lot of people learned some wrong lessons from MJ. The 96-99 list is markedly stronger than 90-93 but in comparison to 84-87 list it has more players whose value I feel is overstated by this metric.

And I think that is due to the factor you outline in your third paragraph. A generation of players were trying to spam difficult shots.

I have not read the book below but I have read a summary of its thesis.



The book's thesis, if the summaries I read are accurate is that the Beatles made excellent music but cut off Rock from its black roots and by pursuing an "art rock" course stagnated the development of the art form. The rock artists who came after them per the summaries I read didn't advance rock nearly as much as other popular artists because they were walking down a narrow path. Tabling the racial component I see parallels with what you said about Jordan.

He may have been the best player of all time up until that point. But his style was pretty much a dead end relative to many of the other ATGs who preceded him. And the vast majority of players who imitiated him offensively ended up worse off for it. So I kind of agree with your third paragraph.

[sp6r=underrated]

Key Facts

The average across all five games was lower than 2023 and 2022’s average NBA Finals ratings (reportedly 11.6 million and 12.4 million, respectively), though the figure far exceeds the 2021 series (9.9 million viewers) and the 2020 contest (7.5 million), both of which were six-game series.

The final game of the Celtics-Mavericks series averaged 12.2 million viewers, according to ABC parent Disney, peaking at 13.2 million viewers.

Game 4—in which the Mavs routed the Celtics 122-84—drew about 9.6 million viewers, marking the second-lowest NBA finals game 4 to date, behind only a pandemic-era game 4 that had 7.54 million viewers in 2020, according to Sports Business Journal.

Games 1 through 3 also had relatively low viewership by pre-pandemic standards, averaging about 10.99 million viewers, 12 million viewers and 11.4 million viewers, respectively—pre-pandemic, average series ratings were typically higher than 16 million viewers, according to Sports Media Watch.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/06/18/nba-finals-hit-lowest-viewership-in-3-years/

The term "big 4" sports leagues in America needs to be retired. The NFL is on a whole different tier than the others. I don't enjoy saying this. I'm much more of an NBA guy than an NFL guy. For most of my life I was more of an MLB guy than NFL guy.

Ratings for everything in America outside of football are plummeting. But the NBA is weird.

Culturally interest in the sport is very, very high. It trends extremely well on social media. Polls show lots of young people list basketball as their most popular sport. And anecdotally people seem very interested in talking about the NBA. My sister, a total non-sports fan living in a city without a team knows who many NBA players are.

But no one watches the game. The RS ratings are low. And even the finals are low. This series had the 4th and 11th biggest metros. It was not the 2021 finals with the 10th and 40th biggest metros. Still the ratings sucked.

The NBA is getting a huge TV deal that is far out of relation with their current tv ratings. As an outsider looking in, the logic behind it from the networks perspective is (i) young people will start watching games; (ii) networks need the NBA to keep cable afloat; (iii) the social media figures indicate a lot of middle aged folks will start watching games again.

I'm a believer in the efficient market hypothesis which is why I've never owned an individual stock and instead have index funds. So I presume the networks are correct. But if they're wrong and fans don't start watching games this deal is going to be a huge albatross for everyone who buys in.

I read a book about cigarettes that convincingly argued that to understand cigarettes you need to understand that they are just nicotine delivery devices. Burning the tobacco is just the best way of getting a super quick nicotine fix. The tobacco itself is just cancer-ridden packaging.

The NBA's social media popularity indicates the potential for a lot of money. But long-term the NBA owners may not get it. It is possible that basketball games are just athletic-highlight delivery devices. By that I mean many people interested in the sport online don't care about basketball games so much as they just like the dunks, 3s and spectacle. The games are just a way to deliver it.

If that is the case, the players themselves will probably pick up most of this money via more and more endorsements while the current tv deal will be a big loser for the networks. I'm not sure this is correct but I am certain a higher percentage of NBA fans are indifferent to the sport itself relative to other leagues.

[Dr Positivity]

I can see the Celtics being a new version of 2000s Spurs that don't really do it for ratings for the casuals, and especially in a lopsied year like this.

But, I've been questioning how sports viewing was going to fit into this new era for a while. Sports biggest asset has always been volume, when there's nothing on there's always sports. The whole popularity of Sportscenter back in the day is because you have nothing else to watch, you could always just turn on SC for 30 minutes. When it comes to non sports tv shows, procedurals where you don't have to see the last episode or sitcoms are not as popular, there isn't a many people sitting down at night and having nothing to do so flipping channels until you find something, people will just go on social media instead of that or something. And the sport whos' biggest asset is it's on every day for 6 months, baseball, seems to be missing something in terms of It connecting recently. It is possible all of this could be reversed and people could become less interested in social media and need stuff to do again, but in the current era I wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being some cracks in the armour for longstanding sports dominance.

[sp6r=underrated]

I can see the Celtics being a new version of 2000s Spurs that don't really do it for ratings for the casuals, and especially in a lopsied year like this.

But, I've been questioning how sports viewing was going to fit into this new era for a while. Sports biggest asset has always been volume, when there's nothing on there's always sports. The whole popularity of Sportscenter back in the day is because you have nothing else to watch, you could always just turn on SC for 30 minutes. When it comes to non sports tv shows, procedurals where you don't have to see the last episode or sitcoms are not as popular, there isn't a many people sitting down at night and having nothing to do so flipping channels until you find something, people will just go on social media instead of that or something. And the sport whos' biggest asset is it's on every day for 6 months, baseball, seems to be missing something in terms of It connecting recently. It is possible all of this could be reversed and people could become less interested in social media and need stuff to do again, but in the current era I wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being some cracks in the armour for longstanding sports dominance.

I think the non-NFL sports derived a ton of revenue from non-sports fans and that system is imploding for the reasons you stated. I could see a scenario in the 2030s where everything but the NFL ends up going the way of boxing where all the big events go on services you need to pay for directly to make up for the collapse in ratings.

[RCM88x]

Basketball is severely lacking in the instant gratification that football brings. Compared to football, there are way more possessions, way more plays, way more games, so everything means less. The NFL specifically benefits a lot from every play feeling like a lottery that can genuinely change the course of a season. Down 27-30 in the 3rd? What if the next play is an 80 yd TD, or a pick 6 that completely changes the game, or even the season. In Basketball, you don't really get that. One 3pt shot doesn't really make or break anything unless it's the last possession or an elimination game. Even if it did, is my team really good enough to win anything since I don't have Lebron or Jokic etc...? So why should I really care.

All this to say that, young people aren't going to sit around and watch a full NBA game for 2 1/2 hours because the time investment just isn't worthwhile. You get more gratification from video games or social media etc.

You can justify it for 3hrs once a week a few times a year with the NFL because it feels like it means more, and the game has that consistent built in lottery effect. You can half pay attention while scrolling social media, watching YouTube, or playing another game and still keep up with the game.

No one under the age of 25 comes home and watches a whole NBA game broadcast, no one. I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year. Where I think I probably watched nearly every play of my favorite NFL and College football team. No one just channel surfs anymore and watches it because its on, there are a lot of better things to do with your time now, especially for younger people.

[sp6r=underrated]

Basketball is severely lacking in the instant gratification that football brings. Compared to football, there are way more possessions, way more plays, way more games, so everything means less. The NFL specifically benefits a lot from every play feeling like a lottery that can genuinely change the course of a season. Down 27-30 in the 3rd? What if the next play is an 80 yd TD, or a pick 6 that completely changes the game, or even the season. In Basketball, you don't really get that. One 3pt shot doesn't really make or break anything unless it's the last possession or an elimination game. Even if it did, is my team really good enough to win anything since I don't have Lebron or Jokic etc...? So why should I really care.

All this to say that, young people aren't going to sit around and watch a full NBA game for 2 1/2 hours because the time investment just isn't worthwhile. You get more gratification from video games or social media etc.

You can justify it for 3hrs once a week a few times a year with the NFL because it feels like it means more, and the game has that consistent built in lottery effect. You can half pay attention while scrolling social media, watching YouTube, or playing another game and still keep up with the game.

No one under the age of 25 comes home and watches a whole NBA game broadcast, no one. I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year. Where I think I probably watched nearly every play of my favorite NFL and College football team. No one just channel surfs anymore and watches it because its on, there are a lot of better things to do with your time now, especially for younger people.

Thanks for giving a younger person's perspective. I'm in my early 40s but still young enough to remember what it felt like to be 25. I remember having the abundance of energy + free time to do whatever I wanted. We did watch full games all the time but in part it was because it was a social thing to do together.

Based on your post and things I've read elsewhere that has died. I'll confess I do sometimes struggle to understand it since all evidence seems to be young people are spending more time alone than ever and live more sedentary lifestyles than ver. But I chalk up my lack of understanding to the typical confusion older people have for the younger generation's life style.

If no one watches the games these tv deals seem insane from the networks end. The value of airing commercials on games no one watches doesn't make sense. Eventually advertisers will realize this and stop placing ads are lower their ad-buys. And the system will crater. Or at least that seems like the most likely outcome if advertisers behave rationally.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. The common offered solution, lower the season to 60 games, seems nuts. No one who would watch NBA games is saying I'd watch em if the season was 60 games long but 82 is just too much. And I don't think basketball as a sport is popular enough to make a go of it with an NFL or even college basketball type schedule. And note college basketball RS ratings are horrific.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year.

When Jordan retired the NBA lost a lot of fans permanently because they followed the sport primarily because of Jordan. I've read a lot of your posts and have always gotten the impression your interest in the NBA is heavily driven by your interest in Lebron. Do you think you'll still follow the NBA when he retires.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way btw, just curious. I'm trying to figure out what the impact will be of the central figure of Lebron leaving.

Jokic, Embiid, Giannis are amazing but I don't think any of them have the mass appeal of Lebron or even Curry.

[Texas Chuck]

One of the reasons the TV model works is because the most valuable target demos are who are still watching. Look at the advertisers, its beer, trucks, gambling(ugh). It's very targeted and its hitting just the audience they want.

Then the networks use live sports to heavily promote their other content. Fox famously overpaid to get into the NFL 30 years ago because they desperately needed to get eyeballs on their prime time programming. And it worked out like they hoped.

Just like with youtube--the ad rates aren't the same based just on number of views. Some are more valuable because of who watches them even with far less fews than Petwie Pie or whomever.

[RCM88x]

I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year.

When Jordan retired the NBA lost a lot of fans permanently because they followed the sport primarily because of Jordan. I've read a lot of your posts and have always gotten the impression your interest in the NBA is heavily driven by your interest in Lebron. Do you think you'll still follow the NBA when he retires.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way btw, just curious. I'm trying to figure out what the impact will be of the central figure of Lebron leaving.

Jokic, Embiid, Giannis are amazing but I don't think any of them have the mass appeal of Lebron or even Curry.

My NBA interest is primarily driven by the Cavs being relevant. Lebron is a curiosity because of his place in history, not the driver. Sometimes those things have correlated quite closely.

However, I do think this brings up another unique element of NBA fandom that isn't as relevant in football. I've heard it called Superhero syndrome, where fans interest are primarily driven by one player, and once that player is no longer playing, their interest wanes. In an era where there is a unique lack of young, American elite players, I think this has hurt the NBA in acquiring new young fans. Especially in todays media landscape where everything has to be analyzed, ranked, compared, contrasted, criticized, etc... Rarely does mass media (if you can even call it that anymore) stop to appreciate the here and now. Not to say there was a lot of criticism of Jordan in his early years. But today, it's impossible for any young player to be talked about without comparisons to former guys (often by former guys). Just creates an atmosphere that isn't as accepting of new people.

There are no young American prospects that have ATG trajectory currently, ANT maybe the closest but that might just be due the vacuum that currently exists. That may not be a problem for the NBA as a whole, but it certainly is a problem for the average American sports fan.

[RCM88x]

Basketball is severely lacking in the instant gratification that football brings. Compared to football, there are way more possessions, way more plays, way more games, so everything means less. The NFL specifically benefits a lot from every play feeling like a lottery that can genuinely change the course of a season. Down 27-30 in the 3rd? What if the next play is an 80 yd TD, or a pick 6 that completely changes the game, or even the season. In Basketball, you don't really get that. One 3pt shot doesn't really make or break anything unless it's the last possession or an elimination game. Even if it did, is my team really good enough to win anything since I don't have Lebron or Jokic etc...? So why should I really care.

All this to say that, young people aren't going to sit around and watch a full NBA game for 2 1/2 hours because the time investment just isn't worthwhile. You get more gratification from video games or social media etc.

You can justify it for 3hrs once a week a few times a year with the NFL because it feels like it means more, and the game has that consistent built in lottery effect. You can half pay attention while scrolling social media, watching YouTube, or playing another game and still keep up with the game.

No one under the age of 25 comes home and watches a whole NBA game broadcast, no one. I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year. Where I think I probably watched nearly every play of my favorite NFL and College football team. No one just channel surfs anymore and watches it because its on, there are a lot of better things to do with your time now, especially for younger people.

Thanks for giving a younger person's perspective. I'm in my early 40s but still young enough to remember what it felt like to be 25. I remember having the abundance of energy + free time to do whatever I wanted. We did watch full games all the time but in part it was because it was a social thing to do together.

Based on your post and things I've read elsewhere that has died. I'll confess I do sometimes struggle to understand it since all evidence seems to be young people are spending more time alone than ever and live more sedentary lifestyles than ver. But I chalk up my lack of understanding to the typical confusion older people have for the younger generation's life style.

If no one watches the games these tv deals seem insane from the networks end. The value of airing commercials on games no one watches doesn't make sense. Eventually advertisers will realize this and stop placing ads are lower their ad-buys. And the system will crater. Or at least that seems like the most likely outcome if advertisers behave rationally.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. The common offered solution, lower the season to 60 games, seems nuts. No one who would watch NBA games is saying I'd watch em if the season was 60 games long but 82 is just too much. And I don't think basketball as a sport is popular enough to make a go of it with an NFL or even college basketball type schedule. And note college basketball RS ratings are horrific.

I think simply put, for young people, you don't have to be physically present with other people to "socialize". I can talk to any of my friends anytime I want from anywhere. Physically being with them doesn't really provide something special. Even shared experiences can occur without being physically present. There's no fear of being left behind by your friends because you don't show up to the hangout spot for a few weeks (these things don't exist anymore btw). I can not leave my house for a month and still talk to everyone everyday.

It's extremely easy to keep up with people you care about keeping up with. I can do it all from my couch. Maybe that seems strange to older people, but many people younger than me have never known a time where they couldn't just instant message, facetime or whatever with their friend anytime they wanted to. That is their version of socialization.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year.

When Jordan retired the NBA lost a lot of fans permanently because they followed the sport primarily because of Jordan. I've read a lot of your posts and have always gotten the impression your interest in the NBA is heavily driven by your interest in Lebron. Do you think you'll still follow the NBA when he retires.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way btw, just curious. I'm trying to figure out what the impact will be of the central figure of Lebron leaving.

Jokic, Embiid, Giannis are amazing but I don't think any of them have the mass appeal of Lebron or even Curry.

My NBA interest is primarily driven by the Cavs being relevant. Lebron is a curiosity because of his place in history, not the driver. Sometimes those things have correlated quite closely.

However, I do think this brings up another unique element of NBA fandom that isn't as relevant in football. I've heard it called Superhero syndrome, where fans interest are primarily driven by one player, and once that player is no longer playing, their interest wanes. In an era where there is a unique lack of young, American elite players, I think this has hurt the NBA in acquiring new young fans. Especially in todays media landscape where everything has to be analyzed, ranked, compared, contrasted, criticized, etc... Rarely does mass media (if you can even call it that anymore) stop to appreciate the here and now. Not to say there was a lot of criticism of Jordan in his early years. But today, it's impossible for any young player to be talked about without comparisons to former guys (often by former guys). Just creates an atmosphere that isn't as accepting of new people.

There are no young American prospects that have ATG trajectory currently, ANT maybe the closest but that might just be due the vacuum that currently exists. That may not be a problem for the NBA as a whole, but it certainly is a problem for the average American sports fan.

Thanks for the response. And I think you're superhero point is important and I do think the NBA is more dependent on it than most sports leagues.

As an aside no athlete in my life ever got the coverage Jordan did. I'd argue that the scrutiny someone like Lebron received isn't so much the outlier as the utter free pass MJ did. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now. Him being a scumbag was almost treated as a compliment which I'll never understand.

[Doctor MJ]

What stood out for me was the real dip in draft class quality in the 90-93 which I don't really understand. Basketball's popularity was steadily improving throughout the 70s/80s and salaries in the NBA had closed in on NFL/MLB. Even when I set a lower threshold of 20 the drop-off is appreciable.

This stat isn't perfect but the cumulative nature of it makes it a decent proxy.

1990-93

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player              VORP
1. Shaquille O'Neal         75.5
2. Gary Payton              62.5
3. Chris Webber             42.1
4. Dikembe Mutombo          33.9
5. Terrell Brandon          30.3
6. Sam Cassell              28.8
7. Alonzo Mourning          27.4
8. Toni Kukoč               27.2
9. Anfernee Hardaway        26.9
10. Robert Horry            26.4
11. Steve Smith             24.6
12. Derrick Coleman         22.3
13. Larry Johnson           22
14. Kenny Anderson          21.9
15. Latrell Sprewell        21
16. Doug Christie           20.7
      Average               32.1

1984- 1987

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        Player                VORP
1. Michael Jordan             116.1
2. John Stockton              106.5
3. Karl Malone                99
4. David Robinson             81.9
5. Charles Barkley            80.5
6. Hakeem Olajuwon            74.2
7. Reggie Miller              66.1
8. Scottie Pippen             63.2
9. Patrick Ewing              50.1
10. Terry Porter              43.3
11. Jeff Hornacek             42.1
12. Chris Mullin              41.6
13. Mark Jackson              37.5
14. Kevin Johnson             37.3
15. Horace Grant              33
16. Detlef Schrempf           32.4
17. Mark Price                31.1
18. Ron Harper                30.3
19. Sam Perkins               29.1
20. Alvin Robertson           28.3
21. Nate McMillan             27.2
22. Joe Dumars                25.3
23. Brad Daugherty            21.3
24. Dennis Rodman             21
25. Derrick McKey             20.4
     Average                  49.6


1996-1999

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

    Player              VORP
1. Tim Duncan           91.1
2. Dirk Nowitzki        84.8
3. Kobe Bryant          80.1
4. Paul Pierce          65.5
5. Vince Carter         57.9
6. Ray Allen            57.6
7. Tracy McGrady        55.7
8. Allen Iverson        49.6
9. Steve Nash           48.2
10.Manu Ginóbili        47.6
11. Shawn Marion        47.6
12. Chauncey Billups    43.5
13. Andrei Kirilenko    41.7
14. Jason Terry         37.4
15. Elton Brand         37.3
16. Andre Miller        33.4
17. Rashard Lewis       33.1
18. Baron Davis         33.1
19. Lamar Odom          31.4
20. Marcus Camby        31.3
21. Stephon Marbury     30.7
22. Peja Stojaković     26.2
23. Metta World Peace   25.4
24. Antawn Jamison      24.5
25. Mike Bibby          23.8
26. Steve Francis       22.7
27. Shareef Abdur-Rahim 21.9
    Average             43.8

I think the dip you're talking about is definitely a real thing, and I'd point to the fact the depth is so much lower too as shown in those lists of yours as evidence that it was more than just a shortage of superstars.

My feeling at the time - which still guides a lot of my thought here - was that these draft prospects were regularly coming in and disappointing relative to the hype, even the ones who came out best in class.

There were injury issues and there were attitude issues, but in terms of a 3rd factor, I feel like this next group was actually biased toward chucking - shooting shots beyond one's capabilities merit - in the wake of Jordan. It kinda felt like guys were only taking a fraction of the message they should have from the previous generation's best.

All good points especially about the depth but I'll focus on paragraph 3.

I think you're probably right that a lot of people learned some wrong lessons from MJ. The 96-99 list is markedly stronger than 90-93 but in comparison to 84-87 list it has more players whose value I feel is overstated by this metric.

And I think that is due to the factor you outline in your third paragraph. A generation of players were trying to spam difficult shots.

I have not read the book below but I have read a summary of its thesis.



The book's thesis, if the summaries I read are accurate is that the Beatles made excellent music but cut off Rock from its black roots and by pursuing an "art rock" course stagnated the development of the art form. The rock artists who came after them per the summaries I read didn't advance rock nearly as much as other popular artists because they were walking down a narrow path. Tabling the racial component I see parallels with what you said about Jordan.

He may have been the best player of all time up until that point. But his style was pretty much a dead end relative to many of the other ATGs who preceded him. And the vast majority of players who imitiated him offensively ended up worse off for it. So I kind of agree with your third paragraph.

Interesting analogy. There are some things in common, and some things not, as with all analogies of course.

I think I'd say that in both cases what happened was more attention paid on certain specific things, and less attention paid on many others. In art it's debatable about whether this was a bad thing or not.

In the case of basketball, if the causality is real, it lowered the competitive ceiling of a cohort.

Back on the music, just because I'm interested in that:

My Mom grew up a Beatles fanatic, whereas for me, if you were going to associate one pop musical group with my formative years, it would be Nirvana. Now, I'll always love Nirvana and acknowledge the influence they had on me...but in the Beatles you really have a group of creators exploring in every direction they could think of. They were something greater in their art than Nirvana was.

I think of this in what has been called the Balkanization, or silo-ization, of pop music, that occurred during the generations where radio stations had a tribal thing going on. An artist that didn't fit into a particular genre's identity wouldn't get promoted, and a successful artist who tried something new could see their credibility damaged.

While this still exists in places within the underground genres like metal, it seems to me that younger generations are less likely to embrace a genre-based identity so much as they wear genre as a particular mood they're in, and so the stars of the today can jump from genre to genre on song to song without fear of the same types of blowback.

I think this is a good thing for these artists, but I do miss the existence of scenes that develop distinct styles over longer periods of time.

[sp6r=underrated]

Basketball is severely lacking in the instant gratification that football brings. Compared to football, there are way more possessions, way more plays, way more games, so everything means less. The NFL specifically benefits a lot from every play feeling like a lottery that can genuinely change the course of a season. Down 27-30 in the 3rd? What if the next play is an 80 yd TD, or a pick 6 that completely changes the game, or even the season. In Basketball, you don't really get that. One 3pt shot doesn't really make or break anything unless it's the last possession or an elimination game. Even if it did, is my team really good enough to win anything since I don't have Lebron or Jokic etc...? So why should I really care.

All this to say that, young people aren't going to sit around and watch a full NBA game for 2 1/2 hours because the time investment just isn't worthwhile. You get more gratification from video games or social media etc.

You can justify it for 3hrs once a week a few times a year with the NFL because it feels like it means more, and the game has that consistent built in lottery effect. You can half pay attention while scrolling social media, watching YouTube, or playing another game and still keep up with the game.

No one under the age of 25 comes home and watches a whole NBA game broadcast, no one. I'm a pretty avid fan (and a few years older than 25) and I probably only watched the full broadcast of a dozen games this year. Where I think I probably watched nearly every play of my favorite NFL and College football team. No one just channel surfs anymore and watches it because its on, there are a lot of better things to do with your time now, especially for younger people.

Thanks for giving a younger person's perspective. I'm in my early 40s but still young enough to remember what it felt like to be 25. I remember having the abundance of energy + free time to do whatever I wanted. We did watch full games all the time but in part it was because it was a social thing to do together.

Based on your post and things I've read elsewhere that has died. I'll confess I do sometimes struggle to understand it since all evidence seems to be young people are spending more time alone than ever and live more sedentary lifestyles than ver. But I chalk up my lack of understanding to the typical confusion older people have for the younger generation's life style.

If no one watches the games these tv deals seem insane from the networks end. The value of airing commercials on games no one watches doesn't make sense. Eventually advertisers will realize this and stop placing ads are lower their ad-buys. And the system will crater. Or at least that seems like the most likely outcome if advertisers behave rationally.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. The common offered solution, lower the season to 60 games, seems nuts. No one who would watch NBA games is saying I'd watch em if the season was 60 games long but 82 is just too much. And I don't think basketball as a sport is popular enough to make a go of it with an NFL or even college basketball type schedule. And note college basketball RS ratings are horrific.

I think simply put, for young people, you don't have to be physically present with other people to "socialize". I can talk to any of my friends anytime I want from anywhere. Physically being with them doesn't really provide something special. Even shared experiences can occur without being physically present. There's no fear of being left behind by your friends because you don't show up to the hangout spot for a few weeks (these things don't exist anymore btw). I can not leave my house for a month and still talk to everyone everyday.

It's extremely easy to keep up with people you care about keeping up with. I can do it all from my couch. Maybe that seems strange to older people, but many people younger than me have never known a time where they couldn't just instant message, facetime or whatever with their friend anytime they wanted to. That is their version of socialization.

Thanks again for a thoughtful response, totally tabaling basketball I do worry about 100% remote socialization. I do think human beings benefit mentally from being in the same room with other people and not just looking at screens. I do worry that this could have some real negative impacts on mental health long-term but again I have no idea here and I think we will just have to find out.

[RCM88x]

Thanks for giving a younger person's perspective. I'm in my early 40s but still young enough to remember what it felt like to be 25. I remember having the abundance of energy + free time to do whatever I wanted. We did watch full games all the time but in part it was because it was a social thing to do together.

Based on your post and things I've read elsewhere that has died. I'll confess I do sometimes struggle to understand it since all evidence seems to be young people are spending more time alone than ever and live more sedentary lifestyles than ver. But I chalk up my lack of understanding to the typical confusion older people have for the younger generation's life style.

If no one watches the games these tv deals seem insane from the networks end. The value of airing commercials on games no one watches doesn't make sense. Eventually advertisers will realize this and stop placing ads are lower their ad-buys. And the system will crater. Or at least that seems like the most likely outcome if advertisers behave rationally.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. The common offered solution, lower the season to 60 games, seems nuts. No one who would watch NBA games is saying I'd watch em if the season was 60 games long but 82 is just too much. And I don't think basketball as a sport is popular enough to make a go of it with an NFL or even college basketball type schedule. And note college basketball RS ratings are horrific.

I think simply put, for young people, you don't have to be physically present with other people to "socialize". I can talk to any of my friends anytime I want from anywhere. Physically being with them doesn't really provide something special. Even shared experiences can occur without being physically present. There's no fear of being left behind by your friends because you don't show up to the hangout spot for a few weeks (these things don't exist anymore btw). I can not leave my house for a month and still talk to everyone everyday.

It's extremely easy to keep up with people you care about keeping up with. I can do it all from my couch. Maybe that seems strange to older people, but many people younger than me have never known a time where they couldn't just instant message, facetime or whatever with their friend anytime they wanted to. That is their version of socialization.

Thanks again for a thoughtful response, totally tabaling basketball I do worry about 100% remote socialization. I do think human beings benefit mentally from being in the same room with other people and not just looking at screens. I do worry that this could have some real negative impacts on mental health long-term but again I have no idea here and I think we will just have to find out.

Sure, I agree it probably is bad for people. Humans didn't evolve to live like this, though this is the same about a lot of other things too. But knowledge and understanding of it is a good place to start, but unfortunately that always lags behind its prevalence in the world. Just cant victim blame, which is where a lot of people go to with this generational stuff. People are a product of their environments. Environments changing isn't a bad thing either. People need to be okay with young people not caring for the same things they did.

[sp6r=underrated]

I think simply put, for young people, you don't have to be physically present with other people to "socialize". I can talk to any of my friends anytime I want from anywhere. Physically being with them doesn't really provide something special. Even shared experiences can occur without being physically present. There's no fear of being left behind by your friends because you don't show up to the hangout spot for a few weeks (these things don't exist anymore btw). I can not leave my house for a month and still talk to everyone everyday.

It's extremely easy to keep up with people you care about keeping up with. I can do it all from my couch. Maybe that seems strange to older people, but many people younger than me have never known a time where they couldn't just instant message, facetime or whatever with their friend anytime they wanted to. That is their version of socialization.

Thanks again for a thoughtful response, totally tabaling basketball I do worry about 100% remote socialization. I do think human beings benefit mentally from being in the same room with other people and not just looking at screens. I do worry that this could have some real negative impacts on mental health long-term but again I have no idea here and I think we will just have to find out.

Sure, I agree it probably is bad for people. Humans didn't evolve to live like this, though this is the same about a lot of other things too. But knowledge and understanding of it is a good place to start, but unfortunately that always lags behind its prevalence in the world. Just cant victim blame, which is where a lot of people go to with this generational stuff. People are a product of their environments. Environments changing isn't a bad thing either. People need to be okay with young people not caring for the same things they did.

100% agreement with all the above.

[sp6r=underrated]

This isn't surprising but Cuban is seemingly out of control.

There is a clarity in the organizational flow chart that was murky in the past. Cuban, despite his claims after selling the majority share of the franchise midseason to the Adelson and Dumont families, no longer has control of basketball operations. Harrison reports to new governor Patrick Dumont, who is kept informed but has shown trust in Harrison to handle roster personnel matters. Dumont rewarded both Harrison and Kidd with multi-year contract extensions during this playoff run.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40373806/nba-finals-2024-why-luka-doncic-kyrie-irving-mavericks-future-title-contenders

[ronnymac2]

I read a book about cigarettes that convincingly argued that to understand cigarettes you need to understand that they are just nicotine delivery devices. Burning the tobacco is just the best way of getting a super quick nicotine fix. The tobacco itself is just cancer-ridden packaging.

The NBA's social media popularity indicates the potential for a lot of money. But long-term the NBA owners may not get it. It is possible that basketball games are just athletic-highlight delivery devices. By that I mean many people interested in the sport online don't care about basketball games so much as they just like the dunks, 3s and spectacle. The games are just a way to deliver it.

I am conflicted seeing the NBA Finals ratings. My enormous ego loves seeing yet another data point showing how terrible this Celtics team is for the league. On the other hand, I enjoy NBA content, so it's not cool seeing this decline.

I don't think it's likely that the NBA games are just athletic-highlight delivery devices. I sure hope Silver and the owners don't mistakenly lean into that. I don't think they will. In the end, I assume these people are smart and know that storytelling - and yes, hero worship - are the primary drivers in the continued growth and prosperity of the league.

[ronnymac2]

I find it unsettling and weird that non-Celtic fans are happy about the Finals result. Tatum - though overrated - seems like a good guy and a role model and all that. Jrue is obviously as professional as they come.

But Brown complains a lot on and off the court and was given $300 million to have fans not select him as an All-Star. Porzingis is arrogant (in the uncool way), unreliable, and possibly a criminal. Horford is a dirty player who has attempted to hurt multiple players; he's also played like a disgrace to his frontcourt position for about a decade now. And the rest are interchangeable mediocrities.

Luka, Ant, and SGA should be the frontrunners for MVP next season. It's got to be new blood, preferably on a quality team.