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

[MavsDirk41]

5'3 Mugsy Bogues played for 14 years in the NBA most of them during 90's, how long do you think he will last in this era?

Barea is maybe 5’9” and he had a very nice career. Especially during the Mavs 2011 run.

The average male height is around about 5'9 (maybe slightly taller). 99.23% of men are taller than 5'3 in the world. These two aren't comparable.

Yea but you dont see many guys who are 5’9” playing today just like you didnt have many guys who were 5’9” playing back in the 80s/90s. You had a few players here and there who were exceptions but it has always been rare for a player under say 5’11” to play in the nba. Denver just had that backup poing guard, cant think of his name off the top of me head, who was probably about 5’9”. Mugsey is a once in a lifetime player making the nba at 5’3.” I dont think Mugsey or Spud playing in the nba in the 90s proves anything negatively about that era of basketball. The talent is greater today because of the international growth we have seen in the nba, not because American born players are better.

[TheNG]

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.

Exactly.
It's funny that the main arguments are always about extrernal conditions (training, food, science) but when you look at the actual data threre is NOTHING to prove it.
If the only arguments are aboit external conditions I can akso give some to support the claim why 90s players had even more talent than today's players...

[ballzboyee]

Of course players are more skilled on average today, you have to be drunk on nostalgia to deny it. Just go watch a few random games on Youtube from the 1990s and try to be remotely objective. Chances are you will see several players getting rotation minutes even deep in the playoffs who'd never see the floor outside of garbage time today if they even make the league.

Just because you grew up in the 1990s and/or your favourite player played mostly in this era doesn't make this era in any way special objectively, you don't need to defend it blindly all the time.

No, you guys are just overrating the current product. It's a lot of flash but not substance. Every team plays the same brand of ball. It's very cookie cutter. It's a safe style of basketball. It's corporate basketball that is produced through a spread sheet. It's almost soulless in that it lacks idiosyncrasy and individuality. It's not about the "skill." It's about getting X amount of shots from 3p and controlling the matchups on the perimeter. If you asked players from the 1990's to play that style, there would quickly adapt. If you asked front offices to develop and sign 3-point specialists in the 1990's, it would not be a problem. Teams were not scouting those type of players in the 1990s, but they existed. Nobody was signing a rotation guy just so he could shoot corner 3's and close out. That's the main driver of the "skill." These guys must fit that mold today.

[dhsilv2]

Just proves teams spamming 3's isn't as big of skill leap as people make it out to be. The push for more 3 and D guys and spread offenses is mostly team/coach driven, not player driven. Players have adapted to the analytics, and then the league pushed rules that made it easier than ever for perimeter players to score. Players today are not more athletic than in the past, but it is fair to say they have a skill advantage when it comes to the emphasis on shooting from beyond the arc. This shift in philosophy from inside post oriented game to perimeter game could have taken hold at any time and players in the 90's would have adjusted also.

Anyone who lifts weights seriously today is going to be better than 30-40 years ago. Hell, Jordan who was one of the guys who brought weight training into the regular season, skipped leg days! He'd be laughed out of a gym today doing that.

Average player in 1995 was 6'7" and 213 lbs. Today average is 6'7" and 215lb. In 1998 it was 215 lbs on average. If players today are doing all this leg work why aren't they significantly heavier with more muscle mass? Because they are training for pliability, flexibility, explosiveness, quickness, and agility. You don't want huge thunder thighs and massive glutes from squats to play professional basketball in any era. If player's today were doing serious leg work, they would weigh a lot more than players in the 1990's. I admit that in the 1980's players were not lifting so much, but by the mid-1990's weight training was fairly standard.

Jordan was somewhat revolutionary in leading the bulls in the early 90's to adding IN SEASON weight training. But again they were skipping legs.

Average is a pretty worthless metric here btw. The first issue is that weights aren't static and our methods of getting average weight and height is. But the bigger issue is that we shouldn't be worried about an average so much as the distribution of height and weight. The league today has less HUGE guys and less tiny guys. We'd want to see distribution. I'll add that height is more or less worthless. Wingspan and standing reach are what actually matters on a court.

Though to your point...I said player started weight training. Nobody said they were training for hypertrophy. Obviously, the goal of weight training isn't to look like a body builder for some people. Let alone athletes. You don't really want to carry mass beyond a point. You do however what to be as explosive as you can be while weighting enough. You don't train legs as an NBA player to have Luka's quads...though good god that man's jacked. But you do it so you can hold your position and sprinting/jump faster. And that's trained through weights. 20 inch arms aren't the goal here. It's functional strength which is done through how you lift (speed, rep ranges, weight) and what you eat.

Think training more like this (I'm sure NBA trainers are more advanced).

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

Barea is maybe 5’9” and he had a very nice career. Especially during the Mavs 2011 run.

The average male height is around about 5'9 (maybe slightly taller). 99.23% of men are taller than 5'3 in the world. These two aren't comparable.

Yea but you dont see many guys who are 5’9” playing today just like you didnt have many guys who were 5’9” playing back in the 80s/90s. You had a few players here and there who were exceptions but it has always been rare for a player under say 5’11” to play in the nba. Denver just had that backup poing guard, cant think of his name off the top of me head, who was probably about 5’9”. Mugsey is a once in a lifetime player making the nba at 5’3.” I dont think Mugsey or Spud playing in the nba in the 90s proves anything negatively about that era of basketball. The talent is greater today because of the international growth we have seen in the nba, not because American born players are better.

The changes in talent today is seen on the tails of the bell curve, not the center. You did see smaller and weaker guards in the league in 80's and 90's. You also saw bigger and slower big men. Both groups as a percentage are mostly gone. You still have some exceptions but it's much less so.

But 2 starters out of 23-27 teams is a lot. Today we see far more 6'4 point guards while then you saw far more 6'4 shooting guards.

[Nate505]

Yes, even though the game is significantly worse due to being a horrible three point chucking fest.

[ItsDanger]

Probably. But the needs of today's game are different. In the past, defense, physicality and toughness were traits that were needed more. Plus, players back then played a VERY defined role on their teams. Today, all players think they're good 3 pt shooters.

[DAWill1128]

5'3 Mugsy Bogues played for 14 years in the NBA most of them during 90's, how long do you think he will last in this era?

Barea is maybe 5’9” and he had a very nice career. Especially during the Mavs 2011 run.

Isaiah Thomas was top 5 in MVP vote , fatty 5'8 in 2017.

Earl Boykins was 5-5, guy played alongside Arenas, Carmelo, Iverson, Brand, and Odom. Guy didn’t retire from the NBA till 2012, was annually in the running for 6th man of the year during his prime.

People underestimate how difficult it is to get in a crouch and slide position guarding someone much shorter than you. Everyone’s built differently but imagine how much lower of a squat position an NBA guy has to get into guarding Boykins than say Carmelo. These guys like Barrea are blisteringly fast, it’s why guys didn’t want to guard Iverson because they knew his speed could blow right by them.

[Rapcity_11]

Of course players are more skilled on average today, you have to be drunk on nostalgia to deny it. Just go watch a few random games on Youtube from the 1990s and try to be remotely objective. Chances are you will see several players getting rotation minutes even deep in the playoffs who'd never see the floor outside of garbage time today if they even make the league.

Just because you grew up in the 1990s and/or your favourite player played mostly in this era doesn't make this era in any way special objectively, you don't need to defend it blindly all the time.

No, you guys are just overrating the current product. It's a lot of flash but not substance. Every team plays the same brand of ball. It's very cookie cutter. It's a safe style of basketball. It's corporate basketball that is produced through a spread sheet. It's almost soulless in that it lacks idiosyncrasy and individuality. It's not about the "skill." It's about getting X amount of shots from 3p and controlling the matchups on the perimeter. If you asked players from the 1990's to play that style, there would quickly adapt. If you asked front offices to develop and sign 3-point specialists in the 1990's, it would not be a problem. Teams were not scouting those type of players in the 1990s, but they existed. Nobody was signing a rotation guy just so he could shoot corner 3's and close out. That's the main driver of the "skill." These guys must fit that mold today.

This is such a hilarious misconception. Yes, teams prioritize getting to the rim and 3's. But how they get there is wildly different.

Can you with a straight face tell me the Celtics, Pacers, Wolves and Mavs play the same brand of ball?

[The Explorer]

Olajuwon has probably the best footwork of anyone in NBA history.
Stockton was probably the most technically sound passer of all time.
MJohnson was probably the most creative passer all time.
Steve Kerr was one of the best shooters of all time.

Very few players shot high volume 3s back then because it wasn't valued. Now, hardly any players have a solid back to the basket game because it isn't valued today.

The game calls for emphasis on different skills and the rules are different. So no, they are not more skilled nor are they more talented now.

[ballzboyee]

Of course players are more skilled on average today, you have to be drunk on nostalgia to deny it. Just go watch a few random games on Youtube from the 1990s and try to be remotely objective. Chances are you will see several players getting rotation minutes even deep in the playoffs who'd never see the floor outside of garbage time today if they even make the league.

Just because you grew up in the 1990s and/or your favourite player played mostly in this era doesn't make this era in any way special objectively, you don't need to defend it blindly all the time.

No, you guys are just overrating the current product. It's a lot of flash but not substance. Every team plays the same brand of ball. It's very cookie cutter. It's a safe style of basketball. It's corporate basketball that is produced through a spread sheet. It's almost soulless in that it lacks idiosyncrasy and individuality. It's not about the "skill." It's about getting X amount of shots from 3p and controlling the matchups on the perimeter. If you asked players from the 1990's to play that style, there would quickly adapt. If you asked front offices to develop and sign 3-point specialists in the 1990's, it would not be a problem. Teams were not scouting those type of players in the 1990s, but they existed. Nobody was signing a rotation guy just so he could shoot corner 3's and close out. That's the main driver of the "skill." These guys must fit that mold today.

This is such a hilarious misconception. Yes, teams prioritize getting to the rim and 3's. But how they get there is wildly different.

Can you with a straight face tell me the Celtics, Pacers, Wolves and Mavs play the same brand of ball?

Almost all teams in the league run some version of 5-out with heavy emphasis on high ball screens and handoffs. Every team is looking at the same shooting charts and trying to get the same matchups to create easy 3p opportunities. Every team is sitting two shooters in the corners and relying on 2-man and 3-man ball. Yea, there are some different flavors and more emphasis toward iso ball, heliocentricism depending on first option, penetration, running the break, and different motion schemes, but at the end of the day in today's league every team has a quota of 3's they must make to be competitive. You can't make those 3's unless you are spreading the floor.

[Rapcity_11]

No, you guys are just overrating the current product. It's a lot of flash but not substance. Every team plays the same brand of ball. It's very cookie cutter. It's a safe style of basketball. It's corporate basketball that is produced through a spread sheet. It's almost soulless in that it lacks idiosyncrasy and individuality. It's not about the "skill." It's about getting X amount of shots from 3p and controlling the matchups on the perimeter. If you asked players from the 1990's to play that style, there would quickly adapt. If you asked front offices to develop and sign 3-point specialists in the 1990's, it would not be a problem. Teams were not scouting those type of players in the 1990s, but they existed. Nobody was signing a rotation guy just so he could shoot corner 3's and close out. That's the main driver of the "skill." These guys must fit that mold today.

This is such a hilarious misconception. Yes, teams prioritize getting to the rim and 3's. But how they get there is wildly different.

Can you with a straight face tell me the Celtics, Pacers, Wolves and Mavs play the same brand of ball?

Almost all teams in the league run some version of 5-out with heavy emphasis on high ball screens and handoffs. Every team is looking at the same shooting charts and trying to get the same matchups to create easy 3p opportunities. Every team is sitting two shooters in the corners and relying on 2-man and 3-man ball. Yea, there are some different flavors and more emphasis toward iso ball, heliocentricism depending on first option, penetration, running the break, and different motion schemes, but at the end of the day in today's league every team has a quota of 3's they must make to be competitive. You can't make those 3's unless you are spreading the floor.

Spreading the floor isn't a brand of basketball. Taking a certain number of 3's isn't a brand of basketball. Teams are getting to those shots in completely different ways.

Neither the Wolves or Mavs play 5 out (aka 50% of the final 4 teams). Boston is really the only team to consistent run a 5-out drive and kick offense.

[Sothron]

I've watched the NBA since 1979. today's players are less talented and less skilled. Players in America almost only come from upper middle class to wealthy parents since the mid 2000's thanks to AAU and the costs involved. So the raw talent pool is much, much smaller as it was before the mid 2000's. The skill level is far lower. There is no low post game, no low post entry passing, no low post defense. Just five guys on two teams basically chucking three point shots 48 minutes a game.

Give me the NBA from the 80's to the mid 90's especially any day of the week over what we are forced to watch as fans since the Curry era of 2016 started.

[RB34]

The sorts science field has exploded in the last decade. It’s night and day in terms of mobility, recovery and supplementation.

It’s really hard for me to see the older generation not being at this level if they had access to the same information.

[ballzboyee]

This is such a hilarious misconception. Yes, teams prioritize getting to the rim and 3's. But how they get there is wildly different.

Can you with a straight face tell me the Celtics, Pacers, Wolves and Mavs play the same brand of ball?

Almost all teams in the league run some version of 5-out with heavy emphasis on high ball screens and handoffs. Every team is looking at the same shooting charts and trying to get the same matchups to create easy 3p opportunities. Every team is sitting two shooters in the corners and relying on 2-man and 3-man ball. Yea, there are some different flavors and more emphasis toward iso ball, heliocentricism depending on first option, penetration, running the break, and different motion schemes, but at the end of the day in today's league every team has a quota of 3's they must make to be competitive. You can't make those 3's unless you are spreading the floor.

Spreading the floor isn't a brand of basketball. Taking a certain number of 3's isn't a brand of basketball. Teams are getting to those shots in completely different ways.

Neither the Wolves or Mavs play 5 out (aka 50% of the final 4 teams). Boston is really the only team to consistent run a 5-out drive and kick offense.

Every team in the league runs a half court 5-out offense set primarily. Are you saying teams aren't running basically the same high ball screens to setup their offense? Sure, you are going to find some nuances, but I could find many more similarities than you could find differences. "Luka Ball" is a 5-out hyper spread offense. Mavs spread the floor with Luka isoing his man or running a pick and roll just about every play. Just because Mavs run a screen option and that ends with a lob to Lively doesn't mean they are not in a 5-out set in the half court. The term brand or style is appropriate to describe what is the dominant scheme in today's game. What's the point of arguing semantics?

Watch on YouTube

[Rapcity_11]

Almost all teams in the league run some version of 5-out with heavy emphasis on high ball screens and handoffs. Every team is looking at the same shooting charts and trying to get the same matchups to create easy 3p opportunities. Every team is sitting two shooters in the corners and relying on 2-man and 3-man ball. Yea, there are some different flavors and more emphasis toward iso ball, heliocentricism depending on first option, penetration, running the break, and different motion schemes, but at the end of the day in today's league every team has a quota of 3's they must make to be competitive. You can't make those 3's unless you are spreading the floor.

Spreading the floor isn't a brand of basketball. Taking a certain number of 3's isn't a brand of basketball. Teams are getting to those shots in completely different ways.

Neither the Wolves or Mavs play 5 out (aka 50% of the final 4 teams). Boston is really the only team to consistent run a 5-out drive and kick offense.

Every team in the league runs a half court 5-out offense set primarily. Are you saying teams aren't running basically the same high ball screens to setup their offense? Sure, you are going to find some nuances, but I could find many more similarities than you could find differences. "Luka Ball" is a 5-out hyper spread offense. Mavs spread the floor with Luka isoing his man or running a pick and roll just about every play. Just because Mavs run a screen option and that ends with a lob to Lively doesn't mean they are not in a 5-out set in the half court. The term brand or style is appropriate to describe what is the dominant scheme in today's game. What's the point of arguing semantics?

The Mavs play the entire game with a non-shooting C. If Lively/Gafford aren't actively screening above the 3 point line or running a handoff, they are either rolling to the rim, screening off ball or in the dunker spot.

Compare that to an actual 5-out offense like the Celtics where Porzingis and Horford spend a ton of time spotting up.

[prophet_of_rage]

Could Charles Oakley be a starter in the NBA today?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[BasketballAnon]

They are products of better technology and training/eating methods.

I think they are in better shape for the most part.

[prophet_of_rage]

Almost all teams in the league run some version of 5-out with heavy emphasis on high ball screens and handoffs. Every team is looking at the same shooting charts and trying to get the same matchups to create easy 3p opportunities. Every team is sitting two shooters in the corners and relying on 2-man and 3-man ball. Yea, there are some different flavors and more emphasis toward iso ball, heliocentricism depending on first option, penetration, running the break, and different motion schemes, but at the end of the day in today's league every team has a quota of 3's they must make to be competitive. You can't make those 3's unless you are spreading the floor.

Spreading the floor isn't a brand of basketball. Taking a certain number of 3's isn't a brand of basketball. Teams are getting to those shots in completely different ways.

Neither the Wolves or Mavs play 5 out (aka 50% of the final 4 teams). Boston is really the only team to consistent run a 5-out drive and kick offense.

Every team in the league runs a half court 5-out offense set primarily. Are you saying teams aren't running basically the same high ball screens to setup their offense? Sure, you are going to find some nuances, but I could find many more similarities than you could find differences. "Luka Ball" is a 5-out hyper spread offense. Mavs spread the floor with Luka isoing his man or running a pick and roll just about every play. Just because Mavs run a screen option and that ends with a lob to Lively doesn't mean they are not in a 5-out set in the half court. The term brand or style is appropriate to describe what is the dominant scheme in today's game. What's the point of arguing semantics?

Watch on YouTube

Then every 80s team ran a 3-2 offence with variations?

What you're seeing isnthentriumph of motion offences over patterns not everybody runnign the same offence.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[LaLover11]

Are cars faster in the modern era?