Do you believe the average NBA player is more talented now than the 90s?

[pwayknicks]

FT % in the 1970’s - 75.4%

FT % in the 2010’s - 76.0%

If the modern player is so much more skilled, why have FT% for the league as a whole remained virtually the same over the past 50 years? Athletes are better, training is better, sports science is better, players practice more and yet the percentages are nearly identical. Can’t wait to read the mental gymnastics used to justify the responses.

You showed am increase in peecentage. No gymnastics needed.

NBA 3pt % 1980-85: 26%
NBA 3pt% 2019-24: 36%

And that's even with the huge huge jump in volume, which means 7 footers and slashers with some broken-looking jumpers (who in the 80s would barely shoot outside of 10 feet) needing to hoist 3s all game.

Not saying that's a mic drop for this whole debate--it's a complicated one--but we gotta do a little better at making these points.

You do know the shot wasn’t practiced much, the lower volume meant a half court shot or a random miss to beat a buzzer lowers that percentage a lot more right ? Free throw line hasn’t moved, if anything the stiffs should have brought that percentage down even more than it did …

[Hair Jordan]

FT % in the 1970’s - 75.4%

FT % in the 2010’s - 76.0%

If the modern player is so much more skilled, why have FT% for the league as a whole remained virtually the same over the past 50 years? Athletes are better, training is better, sports science is better, players practice more and yet the percentages are nearly identical. Can’t wait to read the mental gymnastics used to justify the responses.

You showed am increase in peecentage. No gymnastics needed.

NBA 3pt % 1980-85: 26%
NBA 3pt% 2019-24: 36%

And that's even with the huge huge jump in volume, which means 7 footers and slashers with some broken-looking jumpers (who in the 80s would barely shoot outside of 10 feet) needing to hoist 3s all game.

Not saying that's a mic drop for this whole debate--it's a complicated one--but we gotta do a little better at making these points.

Stupid comparison. Teams barely took any 3’s from
1980-85 and most of the 3’s taken were desperation heaves as the shot clock was winding down, half court buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and shots late in games when teams were down big and trying to catch up. Those percentages are skewed negative for the reasons I just listed above. Try again Einstein.

[HotelVitale]

You showed am increase in peecentage. No gymnastics needed.

NBA 3pt % 1980-85: 26%
NBA 3pt% 2019-24: 36%

And that's even with the huge huge jump in volume, which means 7 footers and slashers with some broken-looking jumpers (who in the 80s would barely shoot outside of 10 feet) needing to hoist 3s all game.

Not saying that's a mic drop for this whole debate--it's a complicated one--but we gotta do a little better at making these points.

Stupid comparison. Teams barely took any 3’s from
1980-85 and most of the 3’s taken were desperation heaves as the shot clock was winding down, half court buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and shots late in games when teams were down big and trying to catch up. Those percentages are skewed negative for the reasons I just listed above. Try again Einstein.

You do know the shot wasn’t practiced much, the lower volume meant a half court shot or a random miss to beat a buzzer lowers that percentage a lot more right ? Free throw line hasn’t moved, if anything the stiffs should have brought that percentage down even more than it did …

Maybe you’re missing the whole premise of this discussion? The hypothesis is that players might be more skilled now precisely because they’re practicing and being asked to master more and different things. Not because humanity has suddenly become much more athletic in a few decades, no one’s arguing anything like that.

In this case, yeah ft shooting was practiced a lot then and is practiced now by everyone so the results are about the same. But you also have a totally different skill (3 pt shooting) that now not only is better honed by some people but that almost everyone has to be better at than almost anyone was in the early 80s. 2 skills that people are practicing intensively and getting to high levels at, vs 1. The whole topic is obviously more complicated than that but that general idea is the premise here.

[durden_tyler]

Let's have a list of say maybe 10-15 average players currently? We should set that baseline first before answering the question.

[MrBigShot]

I think the floor for a role player has gotten considerably higher. You can't just be a 7ft tall lumbering center that offers nothing more than 6 fouls, or an undersized "enforcer" that doesn't bring anything to the table other than hustle.

If you are 6'2 or less, you have to be really damn skilled to be in a rotation.

[Hair Jordan]

NBA 3pt % 1980-85: 26%
NBA 3pt% 2019-24: 36%

And that's even with the huge huge jump in volume, which means 7 footers and slashers with some broken-looking jumpers (who in the 80s would barely shoot outside of 10 feet) needing to hoist 3s all game.

Not saying that's a mic drop for this whole debate--it's a complicated one--but we gotta do a little better at making these points.

Stupid comparison. Teams barely took any 3’s from
1980-85 and most of the 3’s taken were desperation heaves as the shot clock was winding down, half court buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and shots late in games when teams were down big and trying to catch up. Those percentages are skewed negative for the reasons I just listed above. Try again Einstein.

Maybe you’re missing the whole premise of this discussion? Players are more skilled now precisely because they’re practicing and being asked to master more and different things. Not because humanity has suddenly become much more athletic if a few decades, no one’s arguing anything like that.

In this case, yeah ft shooting was practiced a lot then and is practiced now by everyone so the results are about the same. But you also have a totally different skill (3 pt shooting) that not only is better honed by some people but that almost everyone has to be better at than almost anyone was in the early 80s. 2 skills that people are practicing intensively and getting to high levels at, vs 1. The whole topic is obviously more complicated than that but that’s the premise here.

You’re missing the point. Comparing FT% and 3 pt% from the 80’s vs now is a false equivalency. 3 pt% have gotten better because of volume and fewer heaves. Also, players protect their %. FT% can’t be protected. It’s the same unguarded shot 15 ft from the basket whether it’s 1955 or 2024. If players are so much more athletic and so much more skilled and practice so much harder then why haven’t FT% risen dramatically? Seriously, if players are more skilled, why can’t they make FT% at a higher clip then they did 50 or 60 years ago? The best FT shooters today hover around 91%. The best FT shooters in the 80’s were around 91% as well.

[nikster]

Stupid comparison. Teams barely took any 3’s from
1980-85 and most of the 3’s taken were desperation heaves as the shot clock was winding down, half court buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and shots late in games when teams were down big and trying to catch up. Those percentages are skewed negative for the reasons I just listed above. Try again Einstein.

Maybe you’re missing the whole premise of this discussion? Players are more skilled now precisely because they’re practicing and being asked to master more and different things. Not because humanity has suddenly become much more athletic if a few decades, no one’s arguing anything like that.

In this case, yeah ft shooting was practiced a lot then and is practiced now by everyone so the results are about the same. But you also have a totally different skill (3 pt shooting) that not only is better honed by some people but that almost everyone has to be better at than almost anyone was in the early 80s. 2 skills that people are practicing intensively and getting to high levels at, vs 1. The whole topic is obviously more complicated than that but that’s the premise here.

You’re missing the point. Comparing FT% and 3 pt% from the 80’s vs now is a false equivalency. 3 pt% have gotten better because of volume and fewer heaves. Also, players protect their %. FT% can’t be protected. It’s the same unguarded shot 15 ft from the basket whether it’s 1955 or 2024. If players are so much more athletic and so much more skilled and practice so much harder then why haven’t FT% risen dramatically? Seriously, if players are more skilled, why can’t they make FT% at a higher clip then they did 50 or 60 years ago? The best FT shooters today hover around 91%. The best FT shooters in the 80’s were around 91% as well.

So do you think given no extra training, those shooters from the 80s were perfectly capable of shooting high volume of 3s around 36%?

[prophet_of_rage]

You showed am increase in peecentage. No gymnastics needed.

NBA 3pt % 1980-85: 26%
NBA 3pt% 2019-24: 36%

And that's even with the huge huge jump in volume, which means 7 footers and slashers with some broken-looking jumpers (who in the 80s would barely shoot outside of 10 feet) needing to hoist 3s all game.

Not saying that's a mic drop for this whole debate--it's a complicated one--but we gotta do a little better at making these points.

You do know the shot wasn’t practiced much, the lower volume meant a half court shot or a random miss to beat a buzzer lowers that percentage a lot more right ? Free throw line hasn’t moved, if anything the stiffs should have brought that percentage down even more than it did …

They don't foul stiffs


Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[prophet_of_rage]

Stupid comparison. Teams barely took any 3’s from
1980-85 and most of the 3’s taken were desperation heaves as the shot clock was winding down, half court buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and shots late in games when teams were down big and trying to catch up. Those percentages are skewed negative for the reasons I just listed above. Try again Einstein.

Maybe you’re missing the whole premise of this discussion? Players are more skilled now precisely because they’re practicing and being asked to master more and different things. Not because humanity has suddenly become much more athletic if a few decades, no one’s arguing anything like that.

In this case, yeah ft shooting was practiced a lot then and is practiced now by everyone so the results are about the same. But you also have a totally different skill (3 pt shooting) that not only is better honed by some people but that almost everyone has to be better at than almost anyone was in the early 80s. 2 skills that people are practicing intensively and getting to high levels at, vs 1. The whole topic is obviously more complicated than that but that’s the premise here.

You’re missing the point. Comparing FT% and 3 pt% from the 80’s vs now is a false equivalency. 3 pt% have gotten better because of volume and fewer heaves. Also, players protect their %. FT% can’t be protected. It’s the same unguarded shot 15 ft from the basket whether it’s 1955 or 2024. If players are so much more athletic and so much more skilled and practice so much harder then why haven’t FT% risen dramatically? Seriously, if players are more skilled, why can’t they make FT% at a higher clip then they did 50 or 60 years ago? The best FT shooters today hover around 91%. The best FT shooters in the 80’s were around 91% as well.

When are free throws worked on in this era? Or any era? They don't devote large amounts of time to it in practice and in game free throws can't be replicated in a practice environment.

So even if you can say this one area has only improved minimally it has still improved. Your own numbers show it.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[dk1115]

A player today relative to 30 years ago is going to be better, just because of sheer training/tools available to them.

You wanna find a footwork or shooting form video? It's on youtube now. Wanna try finding something like that 30 years ago? Even if it was available, it would take a week to download a 5 minute video. We were on the first stages of America Online 30 years ago, on a 56k modem.

Take it back another 10 years. I'm not even sure if basketball was on TV more than once a week.

[zimpy27]

Let's have a list of say maybe 10-15 average players currently? We should set that baseline first before answering the question.

BJ Armstrong seems like an average 90s player and maybe Dennis Schroeder is the comp?

[Snakebites]

The expansion of the game internationally logically means there are more good players entering the league than there were 30 years ago.

This alone means the answer is yes even if we’re ignoring all other factors, unless you think that’s somehow going to be outpaced by the paltry three teams added to the league in the last 30 years.

The answer is clearly yes. That doesn’t mean I agree with Anthony Edwards though. The expansion of the “plumbers” narrative to include the 90s alongside the 50s and 60s is probably the most absurd thing to become part of fan discourse in recent years.

One could bring up training, equipment, knowledge, and other factors and put them at the forefront of the discussion, but I prefer the “expansion of the game’s popularity” argument here because it doesn’t hinge on a semantic discussion about what the word “talented” means, as opposed to skill.

[Mephariel]

Not more talented. But the talent is far more maximized and harnessed.

I think the problem is that people consistently misuse the word "talent."

[Lo Wang]

I think you have to define what you mean by talent. Are you referring to a more developed skill set on offense? That doesn’t necessarily make today’s players better. They played tougher defense in the past, which has a lot to do with the lower offensive output. They also had more traditional point guards who played smarter compared to the shoot-first guards we see today. This generation is more offensive minded, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better. There is more to basketball than just scoring.

[Lalouie]

they're not BORN MORE TALENTED - let's get that out of the way. there's this inferred misconception that players today are simply better.

they are not..today's players ARE REQUIRED to be more skilled by rules changes. if these very same players today were growing up in the70s/80s/90s they would NOT be as "skilled" as they are now

and let's face it - the de rigueur definition of "more skilled" is shooting from 30'.

Why are taller players more agile with better footwork and handeye coordination?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

The times dictates the TYPE of player. I will suggest it all started around the time unc started recruiting greyhounds,, maybe like Brandon Wright.

But here's my point... When bill walton came into the nba in the early70s he may have been one of those "firsts". 7'/220, agile as f***KKK, a true new breed of center.

He was a seeds and nuts eating vegetarian and he got pushed around. Portland got Maurice Lucas to police that sh** and demanded walton EAT MEAT, and walton did IN ORDER TO SURVIVE THE NBA

So those slim agile players you're talking about???,,, if they played 40yrs ago they'd be forced to muscle up to 250. They'd be told "what are you shooting 3s for? wemby, go add 40lbs and go do your thing in the paint... Wtf are you doing Shooting 3s - and you too, chet. What's this 210lb sh**! Go sit on the bench! " and that's what would happen to those guys.

the zeitgeist of sports WILL ALWAYS dictate the sport and the player.

We're in an age of 3s. Misguided Imo, but so be it. Kids grow up wanting to be curry. Wemby wants to be kd - he's 7effing5 for christs sake! he's the worst 3shooter on the spurs and he takes the third most 3fga

btw the average height of the league has remained the same for 60yrs,,,around 6'7. i'm going to guess that it fluctuates depending on what the nba is looking for, which simply reflects the needs of the times. if you're 6', the nba doesn't want you. it has nothing to do with the bounty of talent or height, or muscle, or weight. it has to do with what the nba is looking for. it wasn't needing a raymond lewis in the 80s.

[jk31]

Talented is the wrong term in my opinion. Not more talented but more skillful definitely.

[foreigngrammar]

Without question. Not even close.

That‘s just not true. They are more developed, better trained, but don‘t step out of the womb with better touch or feel than the Iceman, Bird, Magic or others did.

Talent means something else

[One_and_Done]

We're not arguing about the cause of them being more talented, just that they are.

[naabzor]

I mean when you can carry and travel with the ball I'm sure that make you more "skilled".

[dirkules_41]

Talented in the threat title is the wrong word. Talent level is still the same, however all other elements of the game have drastically improved (from training methods to nutrition, to you name it). Also the talent pool has gotten a lot bigger with the NBAs global reach. So in short: more skilled - 100%, more talented - debatable.