Question for the "We done with the 90's" people

[KembaWalker]

it's funny if you consider the fact, that lebron james came into the nba the season after jordan retired for good, but still his stats look like as if he was in his prime. so what does that tell us about today's nba, which supposedly is packed with super skilled and athletic next generation players, if someone, who is, age wise, basically 90ies 2.0, still looks as good as he does?

Brons an anomaly freak, probably not gonna conclude much trying to generalize anything with him

[Showtime 80]

Try this one on for size:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUTa25pY2tzIHBpc3RvbnMgMTk5Mg%3D%3D

That series had more testosterone and physicality than the last 20 years of the NBA put together

[Marrrcuss]

For guys that play, fouling isnt a measure of the game. This is strictly an MJ fan metric. With the flagrant foul starting the year of MJs first title, and the bull averaging 40 FT/ game against detroit, this narrative is so damn weird.

The old school, unskilled guys are pumping this crap up. Its the reason the Kevin Duckworths, Oliver Millers, etc were able to play a long time and would not be able to get on the court these days.

[Haldi]

For guys that play, fouling isnt a measure of the game. This is strictly an MJ fan metric. With the flagrant foul starting the year of MJs first title, and the bull averaging 40 FT/ game against detroit, this narrative is so damn weird.

The old school, unskilled guys are pumping this crap up. Its the reason the Kevin Duckworths, Oliver Millers, etc were able to play a long time and would not be able to get on the court these days.

Completely agree with this. I don’t know why elbows to the face and kidney punches when the ref isn’t looking became a cool thing in basketball but I for one love that it’s been mostly eliminated from this sport. I also love that there is less and less unskilled goons and hoping one day there will be none in the NBA, even though height is so important and will always give some terrible players a huge advantage.

[lessthanjake]

As with virtually any human endeavor, people are getting better over time. Society learns and optimizes over time and newer people stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak, when it comes to their knowledge and understanding. And then, athletically, you add modern fitness and technology to that. Yes, players are better now than they were in the 1990s. And players in the 1990s were better than players in the 1960s. And players in the 2050s will be better than players today. That’s just the way things go. And it’s why generally people like to make player and team comparisons in relative terms—because without doing that, the answer fairly mechanically becomes that the best players or teams of the present-day era are the best ever.

With basketball, this is complicated by the fact that the rules have changed in significant ways. This can make it hard to parse to what extent current players looking better is a product of people getting better over time or that rule changes have made things easier. For instance, players in the past look like inferior dribblers to current players. How much of that is that current players simply have superior dribbling technique, and how much of it is that dribbling rules are a lot more lax nowadays and allow things that were not allowed in the past? It’s probably a combination of the two.

Anyways, the bottom line IMO is that 1990s basketball was not better than today’s basketball—unless you just prefer watching a specific brand of basketball (i.e. slower pace, less space, more crashing the the boards, harder fouls allowed, etc.). It is generally lower quality play, along with a somewhat different ruleset. But it was fun to watch, and in the context of their time the players and teams were fantastic! And I’ll be saying the same thing about today’s era 30 years from now. The irony is that virtually anyone saying “We done with the 90’s” is probably someone who never even saw the 90s to begin with because they are too young—it’s just a refrain from people who naturally don’t like being told by older people that players/teams they didn’t see live were even better. Which is an understandable feeling, since it is natural to want to feel like you’ve seen the best and greatest. In a sense, anyone watching currently surely has, since, as I said, the quality of play is constantly going up. But people want to feel like they’ve seen the best and greatest in relative terms, and that leads them to dismiss the greatness of things they didn’t see live.

[dhsilv2]

If teams played defense like that...forget the physical aspect. They're having 150 dropped on them with modern players.

But watch this insane defense....

Watch on YouTube

[Special_Puppy]

Watch on YouTube

;t=12s

[Johnny Bball]

Its funny how in every comparison people make, it's always that they would never play under todays rules, like they couldn't contain the perimeter shooting, without understanding in the very least that a comparison is a two way street and players today couldn't play under those rules the same way. Which was OPs point... not the other way around.

Just such lame one way arguments.

[LakerLegend]

It’s funny is how people can’t admit that the league legislated their changes. It’s not like players got better and figured out how to deal with physicality. The league literally changed the rules to promote offense.

[One_and_Done]

Ewing and Oakley could develop into a 3 point shooters, if that was the strategy. Nobody is getting ran out of the building. Just stop it.

Maybe they could learn to pass like Magic while they were at it.

[tsherkin]

Its funny how in every comparison people make, it's always that they would never play under todays rules, like they couldn't contain the perimeter shooting, without understanding in the very least that a comparison is a two way street and players today couldn't play under those rules the same way. Which was OPs point... not the other way around.

Just such lame one way arguments.

You could take any title team from the past fifteen years and they'd likely ice those Knicks without any kind of issue or adaptation time. The 3pt line still existed and their halfcourt sets would brutalize that kind of defense.

[EmpireFalls]

It’s funny is how people can’t admit that the league legislated their changes. It’s not like players got better and figured out how to deal with physicality. The league literally changed the rules to promote offense.

This is absolutely true, but it is also undeniable that players, coaches, and especially GMs got a lot better. The value of space on the floor driven by 3-point shooting has changed the game in endless ways.

You want to talk about the league changing their rules to promote offense, they actually moved the 3 point line closer during the mid 90s to promote offense! That was a literal factual thing that happened - and scoring and efficiency still wasn’t anywhere near the levels it is today.

That to me is undeniable proof of how the players and coaching schemes today have improved.

[Showtime 80]

It’s funny is how people can’t admit that the league legislated their changes. It’s not like players got better and figured out how to deal with physicality. The league literally changed the rules to promote offense.

This is absolutely true, but it is also undeniable that players, coaches, and especially GMs got a lot better. The value of space on the floor driven by 3-point shooting has changed the game in endless ways.

You want to talk about the league changing their rules to promote offense, they actually moved the 3 point line closer during the mid 90s to promote offense! That was a literal factual thing that happened - and scoring and efficiency still wasn’t anywhere near the levels it is today.

That to me is undeniable proof of how the players and coaching schemes today have improved.

The league hadn’t neutered defenses enough at that point to make these ridiculous Chuck and Duck offenses viable plus they didn’t seem to figure out that a closer 3 point like meant that you could collapse the paint more because you could close out on shooters quicker.

Teams built on solid physical defense playing disciplined offense still ruled the NBA from 1995-2005 until David Stern at the constant crying of Mark Cuban and Jerry Colangelo completely eliminated hand checking and added the 3 second defensive rule to finally unlock the MDA Nash Suns style offenses that were always bullied and overmatched in the 80’s/90’s, just ask Don Nelson

Heck the Mavs shot 25 3’s in 1996 (highest total until 2005) shooting 36% and still only won 26 games! They were too small and soft and when the 3 pointer wasn’t falling they didn’t have any other consistent plan, sort of like todays boring repetitive offenses

The league didn’t want defensive first teams holding opponents to 80-90 points like the early/mid 2000’s Spurs, Pistons and Pacers so they eliminated the incentive to even built such teams. They basically created an artificial WWE style league were offensive numbers are artificially inflated and even numb skulls like Russell Westbrick playing off superior athleticism coupled with a 10 cent brain can win MVP and average a friggin triple double for 3 straight seasons, unreal! A player like that is not even sniffing an all-star game in the 80’s/90’s, Steve Nash as well.

Here’s Steve Kerr basically admitting how the NBA changed the rules to enhance players like Curry and the offenses built around them:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUbU3RldmUga2VyciBncmFoYW0gYmVuc2luZ2Vy

True skill is really manifested and appreciated when you have staunch resistance to go against and that’s why the Dream Team generation will ALWAYS be more respected than the rule enhanced AAU babies that came after. The NBA post 2005 became an exhibition when before it was a gauntlet where only the strong survived!

By the way I would’ve loved to have seen Steph, LeBron, Durant, Harden, Luka or Jokic in place of MJ on those 90’s Bulls going up against the Bad Boy Pistons and the Knicks with the rules of the time and nobody to space the floor for their offensive games. It would’ve gotten ugly for the Bulls real quick

[bledredwine]

Pretty much all of the B-list stars of the 90s are definitely well-equipped to be a star today.
Take Vin Baker. His game perfectly translates to today's talent/rules. He'd kill it.

Didn't stand a chance in the 90s.

As T-Mac said, the difference was back then, you played against MEN. You didn't have 19-22 year olds in starting lineups nearly as frequently.

Watch on YouTube

[Showtime 80]

Pretty much all of the B-list stars of the 90s is definitely well-equipped to be a star today.
Take Vin Baker. His game perfectly translates to today's talent/rules. He'd kill it.

Didn't stand a chance in the 90s.

As T-Mac said, the difference was back then, you played against MEN. You didn't have 19-22 year olds in starting lineups nearly as frequently.

Watch on YouTube

That’s another great point! Thanks to the high schooler/one and done phenomenon of the last 25 years the NBA has turned into a perpetual developmental league with players taking 3 to 4 years to even begin showing signs of becoming a serviceable winning player.

All of the soft twinners from the 90’s would’ve loved playing in today’s soft as marshmallow league. Coleman, Owens, Joe Smith, Laettner, Glen Robinson, LJ etc…

[Showtime 80]

By the way seems like the viewing public also preferred the 80’s/90’s style of basketball by a landslide, wow not even close !

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-finals-the-games-with-the-highest-ratings-of-all-time/

[tsherkin]

Pretty much all of the B-list stars of the 90s is definitely well-equipped to be a star today.
Take Vin Baker. His game perfectly translates to today's talent/rules. He'd kill it.

Didn't stand a chance in the 90s.

What? That's ridiculous. Sub-50% 2pt shooter, 64% FT shooter, bleh passer, bleh defender, net negative on O. He had one good season in 98 and otherwise largely sucked.

He'd be awful today.

Am I falling for you kidding here? Because this is so ridiculous it feels like it can't be serious.

[tsherkin]

By the way seems like the viewing public also preferred the 80’s/90’s style of basketball by a landslide, wow not even close !

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-finals-the-games-with-the-highest-ratings-of-all-time/

You understand this only accounts for traditional television, right? So it's obvious that the older stuff would have higher ratings than those aired in times with more access to alternative methods.

[bledredwine]

Pretty much all of the B-list stars of the 90s is definitely well-equipped to be a star today.
Take Vin Baker. His game perfectly translates to today's talent/rules. He'd kill it.

Didn't stand a chance in the 90s.

What? That's ridiculous. Sub-50% 2pt shooter, 64% FT shooter, bleh passer, bleh defender, net negative on O. He had one good season in 98 and otherwise largely sucked.

He'd be awful today.

Am I falling for you kidding here? Because this is so ridiculous it feels like it can't be serious.

No chance. He was too skilled, regardless. He was an athlete and he'd find a way to score, especially in this zero defense beat-one-man to get a layup era.

His sub 50% 2 point shooting was because he took many post-up/midrange shots. He was still .490 from the field. Come on now. Barely under .500.

Lebron is sub 40% beyond 3 feet. Didn't stop him from scoring 30 per game. Actually, he's been trash beyond 3 feet, and below average from 3. Athleticism matters.

[tsherkin]

No chance. He was too skilled, regardless. He was an athlete and he'd find a way to score, especially in this zero defense beat-one-man to get a layup era.

Absolutely not. He was trash-garbage and would remain so in this era.

Lebron is sub 40% beyond 3 feet. Didn't stop him from scoring 30 per game. Actually, he's been trash beyond 3 feet, and below average from 3. Athleticism matters.

Yeah but he was an athletic marvel with a slashing game who was a better FT shooter than Baker AND developed a 3, AND had a post game. That's not a sensible comparison.

I get it if you're trying to use this as parody for other arguments made, but man. Vin Baker. What a cheese-dong.