Why the 90's weren't "watered down."

[BNB]

People always use the "90's were watered down" argument to diss Jordan in a way. Idk if you guys have heard it, but I hear it all the time. They say the 90's weren't as good as the 80's, which they consider the greatest era of basketball of all-time.

This is my case for why the 90's is not watered down.

80-81: 57% of teams finished under .500. 70% didn’t win at least 50 games.

81-82: 39% finished under .500. 78% didn’t win at least 50 games. Only 2 teams in the west finished with over 50 wins.

82-83: 39% finished under .500. 74% didn’t win at least 50 games.

83-84: 48% finished under .500. 83% failed to win 50 games. Lakers were the only team in the west to win over 50.

84-85: 48% finished under .500. 78% didn’t win at least 50.

85-86: 57% finished under .500. 70% didn’t win 50 games.

86-87: 43% finished under .500. 74% didn’t win 50 games.

87-88: 43% finished under .500. 65% didn’t win 50 games.

88-89: 40% finished under .500. 72% didn’t win 50 games.

89-90: 33% finished under .500. 67% didn’t win 50 games.

90-91: 44% finished under .500. 67% didn’t win 50 games.

91-92: 48% finished under .500. 70% didn’t win 50 games.

92-93: 41% finished under .500. 74% didn’t win 50 games.

93-94: 37% finished under .500. 62% didn’t win 50 games.

94-95: 44% finished under .500. 70% didn’t win 50 games.

95-96: 45% finished under .500. 76% didn’t win 50 games.

96-97: 51% finished under .500. 65% didn’t win 50 games.

97-98: 38% finished under .500. 65% didn’t win 50 games.

98-99: 38% finished under .500. 69% didn’t win 30 games. [this was a shortened season and teams only played 50 games.

99-00: 41% finished under .500. 69% didn’t win 50 games.

80’s Total Average: 45% finished under .500. 73% didn’t win 50 games.
90’s Total Average: 43% finished under .500. 69% didn’t win 50 games.

What does that show? That shows that teams were better in the 90’s compared to the 80’s. There were less under .500 teams in the 90’s, and more 50 win teams in the 90’s. Also, the 90’s had a healthy competition between the teams in both conferences. Year after year there were a few teams in the hunt to win each conference. In the 80’s, it was a different story. The only legit team year after year in the West was the Lakers. That’s no surprise either considering they had Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, McAdoo, A.C green, and other good role players. There was really no team in the west that could match all of the talent that the Lakers had. In fact, the ONLY team in the west that was able to knock the lakers out of the post-season until the Suns did it in 89 was the Rockets. In the Eat, it wasn’t much different, but there was more competition than the west. The east had Boston, Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit a little later on. Of the teams I listed, they were the only one’s in the 80’s other than Milwaukee to make it to the Finals in the 80’s. The rockets, lakers, Celtics, Pistons, and sixers. That’s it. The 90’s finals series featured the Bulls, Knicks, Magic, Pistons, Jazz, Lakers, Rockets, Sonics, Blazers, Spurs.

I know someone in here is going to bring up the expansion teams and say that’s why the 90’s were “watered down.” Let me explain. Expansion teams = more teams. More teams = less games played between teams. You see, in the 80’s there were less teams. So a good team would face 1 shitty team around 6 times a season. Since there were more teams in the 90’s, a good team would face a shitty team 2, 3, or 4 times a season, depending on which conference the shitty team was playing in. So really, it evens out. 1 good team playing a couple of shitty teams 6 times a year = 1 good team playing a shitty team 2-4 times a year.

It wasn’t until the mid-90’s that the NBA enforced rules to favor the offensive player due to low scoring games. They got rid of hand-checking, put in the 3 second rule, etc. These rules are even in today’s NBA. So if THAT’S the reason why the NBA was “watered down” in the 90’s, then today’s NBA is also “watered down” right? Wrong.

Talent level between the 80’s and 90’s was pretty even. I mean, some players that played in the 80’s played in the 90’s as well. Some players that play in today’s game played in the 90’s.

So when you think about it… the 90’s was a mixture between the 80’s and 00’s. People seem to LOVE the 80’s and LOVE the 00’s, yet they always spit on the 90’s and say it was “watered down.”

Makes no sense to me.

 

[Crystallas]

I may not agree entirely, but I do appreciate the post. Nicely done.

 

[BNB]

I may not agree entirely, but I do appreciate the post. Nicely done.

Thanks!

which parts do you not agree with?

 

[Crystallas]

Thanks!

which parts do you not agree with?

I don't buy into any decade having more athletic or better players than another generation. Styles change, rules change, and techniques change, but the talent is always there. Head to head, every generation still has a competitively level playing field.

You also have the unknown variable. Some players are lucky to get picked up by the right teams, and those players flourish. Other players can be better or equally good, but they get squandered by bad fits, wrong coaches, or ignorant GMs. If you reshuffle the puzzle, each decade may still have that very select small group of players that remain elite, but many of the other late-bloomers and likely stars might fall flat in other systems.

 

[BNB]

I don't buy into any decade having more athletic or better players than another generation. Styles change, rules change, and techniques change, but the talent is always there. Head to head, every generation still has a competitively level playing field.

You also have the unknown variable. Some players are lucky to get picked up by the right teams, and those players flourish. Other players can be better or equally good, but they get squandered by bad fits, wrong coaches, or ignorant GMs. If you reshuffle the puzzle, each decade may still have that very select small group of players that remain elite, but many of the other late-bloomers and likely stars might fall flat in other systems.

But I didn't say anything about athletic ability being better in one generation.

I'm talking about talent level, which I said was pretty even between the 80's and 90's.

"Talent level between the 80’s and 90’s was pretty even. I mean, some players that played in the 80’s played in the 90’s as well. Some players that play in today’s game played in the 90’s.

So when you think about it… the 90’s was a mixture between the 80’s and 00’s."

And the points you bring up are just other reasons for why it's dumb to consider the 90's "watered down." It isn't and neither is any other era... maybe the 60's and 70's...

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

athletic ability is a part of talent

 

[BNB]

athletic ability is a part of talent

you can still be a very talented player and not athletic.

Like Steve Nash.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

you can still be a very talented player and not athletic.

Like Steve Nash.

yes....but he'd be MORE talented if he was athletic

talent and athleticism are not two different things

 

[BNB]

yes....but he'd be MORE talented if he was athletic

talent and athleticism are not two different things

When people talk about a talented basketball player, they talk about how he shoots, passes, rebounds, plays defense, etc.

when people talk about an athletic basketball player, they talk about how fast he is, how high he can jump, etc. who says, "Wow... Kyle Korver is so athletic cuz he can shoot 3's." no one. People say he's a talented 3 point shooter.

Yes, you can argue that athleticism is part of talent, but they aren't the same. At least not to me and not in this argument.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

When people talk about a talented basketball player, they talk about how he shoots, passes, rebounds, plays defense, etc.

and athleticism....not to say a talented player or a player with talent has to be athletic...but being athletic is definitely a talent....lebron is a talented player because of everything you listed and also he is gifted(synonym of talent) with great physical talent or athleticism

when people talk about an athletic basketball player, they talk about how fast he is, how high he can jump, etc. who says, "Wow... Kyle Korver is so athletic cuz he can shoot 3's." no one. People say he's a talented 3 point shooter.

an athletic basketball player is also talented...but another part of talent is skill which can be set apart from athleticism(another aspect of talent)...so yes korver is not a great athlete but a skilled 3 point shooter...which means he is talented because he is skilled...

so i can have lots of passing,shooting, and crafty skills and lack athleticism and still be talented

and i can also be a freak jumper,fast,quick,strong but lack passing and shooting skills and still have talent, physical talent that is

Yes, you can argue that athleticism is part of talent, but they aren't the same. At least not to me and not in this argument.

i never said they were the exact same thing..i said they are not two different things....athleticism is a sub category of talent....or a part of talent

 

[BNB]

"At least not to me and not in this argument."

Which means I was never focusing on athleticism when I started the thread......

That's a completely different argument.

 

[Crystallas]

Steve Nash might not have a monster vertical, but he's very athletic. Reaction speed, hand eye coordination, speed, stopping power. No I have to strongly disagree with that assessment. You might not think he's athletic, but he has played in an uptempo system for most of his career that doesn't require him to slash and dunk like other guards.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

and i agree with crystallas...some talent doesnt pan out so you cant look at stats and expect an exact correlation to talent...

i do think that the early 90s had some good teams but lacked great teams like the earlier lakers and celtics as well as the sixers and bad boy pistons(who fell off after two titles)

i dont think the non-physical skill level(as in basketball IQ,shooting,passing,fundamentals,etc.) has changed that much since the 80s...you can arguably say it was better or more important in the 80s when players like magic and larry dominated the game despite lacking great athleticism

but i do think that players,as we neared the 2000s, became better physical specimens to the point now where being an exceptional athlete is a requirement unless you are a giant big man or a spot up shooter..even then you still need to have atleast adequate physical tools..not to say that the 80s didnt have great athletes...but now the level of athletes is higher

probably part of the reason people thought that the 90s was watered down was the supposed lack of competition in the 90s against jordan..but jordan's dominance is more of a testament to how good he and he team was more than anything else

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

"At least not to me and not in this argument."

Which means I was never focusing on athleticism when I started the thread......

That's a completely different argument.

yes i understand that but you said you were talking about talent level rather than athleticism...but athleticism is an aspect of talent

so you should have said im not talking about athleticism...rather non-physical talent

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Steve Nash might not have a monster vertical, but he's very athletic. Reaction speed, hand eye coordination, speed, stopping power. No I have to strongly disagree with that assessment. You might not think he's athletic, but he has played in an uptempo system for most of his career that doesn't require him to slash and dunk like other guards.

i think he's a good athlete...but he's not an exceptional one

being athletic in the nba means having EXCEPTIONAL(notice the emphasis) physical tools...like lebron,d rose,kobe,

so yes...nash is athletic to the perspective of the average person...but i dont think i dont think his athleticism is a great strength compared to other nba players...he is pretty fast...but he isnt a speed demon..he's quick enough to stay in front of many other guards...he has great hand eye coordination and reaction speed but lacks strength and jumping abiliy

 

[BNB]

"i do think that the early 90s had some good teams but lacked great teams like the earlier lakers and celtics as well as the sixers and bad boy pistons"

The 90's didn't lack great teams. That's the thing. There were a lot of great teams in the 90's. The Bulls were just better than them all. So why use that against them? The 80's had less teams and each of the great teams were stacked with great players. The other teams sucked... badly.

"probably part of the reason people thought that the 90s was watered down was the supposed lack of competition in the 90s against jordan"

You can use the same argument for The 80's. The Celtics/Lakers combined for 8 titles in the 80's. Each of those teams had 4 hall of famers.... but no one says the 80's were watered down. Yet the 90's was watered down because a team with only 2 [maybe 3] hall of famers kept winning. Just doens't make sense to me.

 

[Crystallas]

Oh, there is no doubt. People forget that the Bulls were not the favorites to win the NBA finals for 4 of their 6 titles.

 

[BNB]

Oh, there is no doubt. People forget that the Bulls were not the favorites to win the NBA finals for 4 of their 6 titles.

exactly. In 91, the Bull's goal was to beat the pistons. They just happened to win the title too, even though they were underdogs haha. and MJ outplayed the shit outta Magic, the 80's best player imo.... He almost even had more assists.... he woulda if Magic didn't have 20 in game 5.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

that lakers team was a declining one though...and played in an easier western conference

but ya not many people expected jordan and the bulls who had never been to the finals to win in such dominating fashion

late 80s and early 90s were jordan's prime...and he still scored at a high level after his "retirement" but i think his all around game dropped a bit with age

but in the late 80s early 90s jordan was rebounding and passing at the same rate if not higher than lebron is doing now and scoring over 30...people forget that

yes the 90s had some damn good teams...but not many that were as stacked with hall of famers as the 80s imo....stars were starting to become more spread out on teams with expansion...and i think the early 90s and mid 90s were mostly good with the rockets,spurs,knicks,etc. but many of those star players on those teams grew old...the end of the 90s was a start of a new generation and there was a lot of young talent but it was a down point for the nba imo..

but you did omit my quote about "watered down" being very very subjective and mostly comes from the doubt that jordan and the bulls could dominate a decade like they did

the 90s had probably more good teams...but i dont think it was as top heavy imo....but again this is subjective

 

[Crystallas]

Yeah, but its easy to say all of these things in retrospect. At the time, the NBA was booming with talent and good teams. The Jordan media circus has done a lot for the Bulls, but it has maybe blurred the reality of what happened.