Around the NBA part 4

knicks94 · Post #1161 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:44 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:
That Mavs team would have gotten molested by many teams who lost to Jordan in the 90's

Not really!

Yes, really

How? I just showed you why those teams would have not destroyed the 2010-11 Mavericks. You seriously believe that a washed up Lakers teams would have beaten the Mavericks? Or a Phoenix Suns team that had to acquire Charles Barkley in the 1992 offseason to make a playoff run would have swept or even defeated in 5 games a Mavericks team that won against a Heat team that had two of the top players in NBA history?

Quick Kick · Post #1162 » by **Quick Kick** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:58 am

dude, nobody expected the Mavs to get to the Finals in 2011. NOBODY. The Lakers were heavily favored, and so was OKC in the Conference Finals. Dallas getting that far was a complete shock to anyone who wasn't a Mavs fan.

The Mavs may have beaten the 1991 Lakers, but thats about it. The 92 Blazers, the 93 Suns, 96 Sonics and those Jazz teams would have for sure beaten Dallas.

that 92-93 Suns team didnt need Barkley for a playoff run...they had already made the playoffs the previous year or two. Barkley just put them over the top. Majerle, KJ, Ceballos, Dumas, Miller, MVP Barkley, Chambers, Ainge....maaan hell no :lol:

they would have slaughtered Dallas

knicks94 · Post #1163 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:05 am

Quick Kick wrote:dude, nobody expected the Mavs to get to the Finals in 2011. NOBODY. The Lakers were heavily favored, and so was OKC in the Conference Finals. Dallas getting that far was a complete shock to anyone who wasn't a Mavs fan.

The Mavs may have beaten the 1991 Lakers, but thats about it. The 92 Blazers, the 93 Suns, 96 Sonics and those Jazz teams would have for sure beaten Dallas.

People make predictions all the time, that doesn't mean that what they predict will happen at least 75 percent of the time. Predictions are made in November while championships are won in June. The Mavericks beat the Lakers and OKC in the playoffs because they were a better team than them.

How would the '92 Blazers, '93 Suns and '97 -'98 Jazz have defeated the '11 Mavericks?

knicks94 · Post #1164 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:10 am

Quick Kick wrote:that 92-93 Suns team didnt need Barkley for a playoff run...they had already made the playoffs the previous year or two. Barkley just put them over the top. Majerle, KJ, Ceballos, Dumas, Miller, MVP Barkley, Chambers, Ainge....maaan hell no they would have slaughtered Dallas

They couldn't even get out of the second round of the playoffs before Barkley arrived. Even with Barkley they nearly lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Post #1165 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:14 am

knicks94 wrote:
Quick Kick wrote:that 92-93 Suns team didnt need Barkley for a playoff run...they had already made the playoffs the previous year or two. Barkley just put them over the top. Majerle, KJ, Ceballos, Dumas, Miller, MVP Barkley, Chambers, Ainge....maaan hell no they would have slaughtered Dallas

They couldn't even get out of the second round of the playoffs before Barkley arrived. Even with Barkley they nearly lost in the first round of the playoffs.

The NBA was much much tougher back then

knicks94 · Post #1166 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:19 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:
Quick Kick wrote:that 92-93 Suns team didnt need Barkley for a playoff run...they had already made the playoffs the previous year or two. Barkley just put them over the top. Majerle, KJ, Ceballos, Dumas, Miller, MVP Barkley, Chambers, Ainge....maaan hell no they would have slaughtered Dallas

They couldn't even get out of the second round of the playoffs before Barkley arrived. Even with Barkley they nearly lost in the first round of the playoffs.

The NBA was much much tougher back then

Don't you think that the players of today's NBA are talented enough to adjust their game to the NBA of twenty years ago?

Post #1167 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:23 am

knicks94 wrote:Don't you think that the superstars of today's NBA are talented enough to adjust their game to the NBA of twenty years ago?

No, I think many of them are the product of rule changes that rewards athleticism over actual skill and makes perimeter defense nearly impossible.

knicks94 · Post #1168 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:30 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:Don't you think that the superstars of today's NBA are talented enough to adjust their game to the NBA of twenty years ago?

No, I think many of them are the product of rule changes that rewards athleticism over actual skill and makes perimeter defense nearly impossible.

So a guy who's devoted his entire life to playing a sport, who's made it all the way to the highest level that anyone could ever reach in that sport didn't make it all the way there because he happened to be more talented than the rest of the people competing to make it that far?

Post #1169 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:38 am

knicks94 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:Don't you think that the superstars of today's NBA are talented enough to adjust their game to the NBA of twenty years ago?

No, I think many of them are the product of rule changes that rewards athleticism over actual skill and makes perimeter defense nearly impossible.

So a guy who's devoted his entire life to playing a sport, who's made it all the way to the highest level that anyone could ever reach in that sport didn't make it all the way there because he happened to be more talented than the rest of the people competing to make it that far?

The talent is watered down all the way down the line.

These guys are good, but they aren't touching the players from the previous era. If Jordan, Richmond, Drexler etc... had access to the amenities these guys today do, as well as the rule changes, many of the players you are propping up might not even be starters, let alone multiple time all-stars.

With the way you can't even touch guys, and refs giving FT's for the slightest contact, I don't think it's crazy to say Jordan would have averaged 40+ a few seasons on over 50% shooting.

Falstaffxx · Post #1170 » by **Falstaffxx** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:48 am

Lin's creativity and passing were great tonight.

knicks94 · Post #1171 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:49 am

The talent is watered down all the way down the line.

These guys are good, but they aren't touching the players from the previous era. If Jordan, Richmond, Drexler etc... had access to the amenities these guys today do, as well as the rule changes, many of the players you are propping up might not even be starters, let alone multiple time all-stars

If the talent is so watered down how come every professional basketball player can't play in the NBA? How come guys like Delonte West and Chris Anderson have difficulty staying with an NBA team? If the NBA of the past decade is a league about rule changes and star treatment why didn't a 38 year Michael Jordan dominate in a much favorable and easier league when he played for the Wizards? To say that players like Kevin Durant or Lebron James would be bench players during the era of the 90's is a bit extreme.

Post #1172 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:52 am

knicks94 wrote:
The talent is watered down all the way down the line.

These guys are good, but they aren't touching the players from the previous era. If Jordan, Richmond, Drexler etc... had access to the amenities these guys today do, as well as the rule changes, many of the players you are propping up might not even be starters, let alone multiple time all-stars

If the talent is so watered down how come every professional basketball player can't play in the NBA? How come guys like Delonte West and Cris Anderson have difficulty staying with an NBA team? If the NBA of the past decade is a league about rule changes and star treatment why didn't a 38 year Michael Jordan dominate in a much favorable and easier league when he played for the Wizards? To say that players like Kevin Durant or Lebron James would be bench players during the era of the 90's is a bit extreme.

A 40 yr old Jordan was a 20/6/4/2/1 player in this league.

Think about that

Post #1173 » by **Capn'O** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:55 am

This conversation is hurting my soul.

Post #1174 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:57 am

Capn'O wrote:This conversation is hurting my soul.

Mine too

I always feel dirty when I have to defend Jordan

Post #1175 » by **Capn'O** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:59 am

GONYK wrote:
Capn'O wrote:This conversation is hurting my soul.

Mine too

I always feel dirty when I have to defend Jordan

Dude was so effin' good though. Dudes like Kobe, LeBron, and Durant would have still been awesome, imo. But generally, the skill level was so high... and the big men. There really hasn't been another era with so many great bigs. We're just starting to get some decent ones back.

knicks94 · Post #1176 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:00 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:
The talent is watered down all the way down the line.

These guys are good, but they aren't touching the players from the previous era. If Jordan, Richmond, Drexler etc... had access to the amenities these guys today do, as well as the rule changes, many of the players you are propping up might not even be starters, let alone multiple time all-stars

If the talent is so watered down how come every professional basketball player can't play in the NBA? How come guys like Delonte West and Cris Anderson have difficulty staying with an NBA team? If the NBA of the past decade is a league about rule changes and star treatment why didn't a 38 year Michael Jordan dominate in a much favorable and easier league when he played for the Wizards? To say that players like Kevin Durant or Lebron James would be bench players during the era of the 90's is a bit extreme.

A 40 yr old Jordan was a 20/6/4/2/1 player in this league.

Think about that

He was talented enough to pad his stats on a bad team but wasn't dominant enough to carry them to the playoffs.

Post #1177 » by **GONYK** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:01 am

knicks94 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
A 40 yr old Jordan was a 20/6/4/2/1 player in this league.

Think about that

He was talented enough to pad his stats on a bad team but wasn't dominant enough to carry them to the playoffs.

HE WAS 40

Plus, Washington went from 19 wins to 37 wins with Jordan

Post #1178 » by **Capn'O** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:02 am

Pharmcat wrote:
Le Capitan wrote:I think we could have gotten Gasol. He's getting 13.9 this year which means more than that first year. We start him at 14-14.5. Do they match? I don't think so, given what they're up to now.

they had a different owner then

they wouldve matched the offer for gasol

Hard to say what could or couldn't have happened... but you can't (and didn't) deny that core would have been really, really solid.

Post #1179 » by **Capn'O** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:04 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
A 40 yr old Jordan was a 20/6/4/2/1 player in this league.

Think about that

He was talented enough to pad his stats on a bad team but wasn't dominant enough to carry them to the playoffs.

HE WAS 40

^actually laughed out loud

knicks94 · Post #1180 » by **knicks94** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:16 am

GONYK wrote:
knicks94 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
A 40 yr old Jordan was a 20/6/4/2/1 player in this league.

Think about that

He was talented enough to pad his stats on a bad team but wasn't dominant enough to carry them to the playoffs.

HE WAS 40

Plus, Washington went from 19 wins to 37 wins with Jordan

Yeah but your argument was that almost anyone with very little talent can thrive in today’s NBA due to the watered down level of talent, the number of rules that were added and the special treatment that certain players receive. According to your argument Michael Jordan should have dominated the NBA even at 40 simply because his talent was so much superior to the talent of the younger elite players that played against him and simply because the rules would have made it easier for him to dominate.