True/False: The NBA has less talent now than years prior.

[l3bron]

This is a fun topic. Talent VS fundamentals and basketball IQ. What has the ESPN highlight reel done to todays NBA and NCAA. Everyone here want to see the dunks. Not the 15 foot jump shot. Or the free throw made.

You're saying you'd rather a 15 foot jumpshot over a dunk?

[rileymartin]

The game has evolved.

Athleticism in necessarry in todays game.

[Da Stars.]

This is a fun topic. Talent VS fundamentals and basketball IQ. What has the ESPN highlight reel done to todays NBA and NCAA. Everyone here want to see the dunks. Not the 15 foot jump shot. Or the free throw made.

You're saying you'd rather a 15 foot jumpshot over a dunk?

What did you actually post? Your post was quite vague. Maybe I should ask, what would you rather have. A player who can shoot his free throws. And a good jump shot. Or a player just able to dunk the ball.

[l3bron]

This is a fun topic. Talent VS fundamentals and basketball IQ. What has the ESPN highlight reel done to todays NBA and NCAA. Everyone here want to see the dunks. Not the 15 foot jump shot. Or the free throw made.

You're saying you'd rather a 15 foot jumpshot over a dunk?

What did you actually post? Your post was quite vague. Maybe I should ask, what would you rather have. A player who can shoot his free throws. And a good jump shot. Or a player just able to dunk the ball.

The first one obviously.

Fun fact: Free throw shooting was at its worst in the 60s and 90s. Average FT shooting has been in the 73-76% range for pretty much the last 50 years.

The best league-wide FT-shooting average for a season was just 4 years ago.

Another fun fact: EFG% (Which accounts for 3 pointers and free throws) has been at it's highest during the new millennium. 7 years from the 00's in the top 10 seasons in terms of shooting.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... stats.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cool huh?

[sportswise1]

The players of today are are bigger /stronger/faster and more athletic. Most of the players from both the past and present agree with that.
More talented is a big ?? but in general I'd say they are more talented if you count ALL the players not just comparing the superstars of the past to those of today.

[sportswise1]

"The NBA has less talent now than years prior" = The NBA's talent has colluded and joined LeFraud Shames and the Miami cHeat...a team of collusioners.

Dwayne Wade is supposed to be leading his own team.

LeHelpMehPlease is supposed to be leading his own team.

Ray colluding with the cHeat further tipped the scale in favor of Miami.

The No. 1 pick Greg Oden getting in on the collusion action.

The No.2 pick Michael Beastley as well.

Then you have role players such as The Birdman who was already part of a solid team out west only to betray them just like RayRay did the Celtics.

Most of the talent either joined the cHeat or colluded elsewhere.

Ridiculous--as usual!
Other than the big three -there isn't a single player on the Heat that would start for any of the top tier teams and none of them even average 10 pts per game . (bosh just got over the 15 per game mark himself--

[town bidness]

absolutely false.

Explain your reasoning please.

i have really nothing to add. much to my surprise, witness basically did a decent job defending the op. people confuse their favorite era with having better talent or stating the mind numbing canard that current players 'lack fundamentals'.

i loved the 80s and all but there was nothing special about those players outside of the usual handful of unique superstars each era has and that there was less teams making for more heated competition.

what was once exceptional, becomes fundamental as the game evolves.

[l3bron]

True... to-a-man there is less talent / skill / fundamentals in the league relative to the 80's and 90's.

So less talent overall in the league or less depth on each team on a league-wide basis?

Probably a bit of both... I would say that the top-tier talent of today is on-par with the top talent of other eras, meaning the stars of today would be stars yesterday (and vice versa); however once you get past the 7th-8th guy on most rosters today, you're talking about a ton of players who (IMO) wouldn't have made NBA back in the day.

I don't understand how any intelligent fan of the game could argue that the NBA had a deeper talent pool in the 80's/90's. That was clearly one of the major faults of the era.

I just sorted the win shares for 92-93 and the guy who was listed as 75th was Bimbo Coles.

[ripper76]

So less talent overall in the league or less depth on each team on a league-wide basis?

Probably a bit of both... I would say that the top-tier talent of today is on-par with the top talent of other eras, meaning the stars of today would be stars yesterday (and vice versa); however once you get past the 7th-8th guy on most rosters today, you're talking about a ton of players who (IMO) wouldn't have made NBA back in the day.

I don't understand how any intelligent fan of the game could argue that the NBA had a deeper talent pool in the 80's/90's. That was clearly one of the major faults of the era.

I just sorted the win shares for 92-93 and the guy who was listed as 75th was Bimbo Coles.

I loved Bimbo Coles. Him and Kevin Edwards made for an exciting backcourt duo when they were on the floor together with the Heat. Undersized and lacking somewhat in talent, but they played with a lot of heart and it was fun to watch.

[Y2K]

So less talent overall in the league or less depth on each team on a league-wide basis?

Probably a bit of both... I would say that the top-tier talent of today is on-par with the top talent of other eras, meaning the stars of today would be stars yesterday (and vice versa); however once you get past the 7th-8th guy on most rosters today, you're talking about a ton of players who (IMO) wouldn't have made NBA back in the day.

I don't understand how any intelligent fan of the game could argue that the NBA had a deeper talent pool in the 80's/90's. That was clearly one of the major faults of the era.

I just sorted the win shares for 92-93 and the guy who was listed as 75th was Bimbo Coles.

So was that last statement for shits and giggles? Or do you really put that much emphasis on win shares?

[Deez]

Not necessarily less talent but teams just aren't as good. There is the talent no doubt but the league is soft as fuck.

[lettherebehouse]

Just off the top of my head - shooters moving without the ball. Ray Allen was a master at this in his prime, but too many offenses have shooters just standing around.

PGs who bring the ball up the sides instead of the middle. That's one of easiest ways to get trapped.

Boxing out and other low-box footwork for both offense and defense.

Following your shot. Players rarely do this anymore outside the paint. I call it the chuck and backpedal.

Missed midrange jumpers and the ability to transition back on D. Too many players admiring their shot and not hustling back to catch their man.


Like I said, players are looking to bypass these in development by only playing college ball for a year, or even not at all like Brandon Jennings. At the college level, we're deep into a generation of players who are more concerned about their individual outcome than the collective (team) one. You want to work on becoming the better player, or just a better draft pick?

The bulk of the big men can't even post up and be legit scorers. The main bigs who do score rely far more on athleticism, not skill.

Shooters moving without the ball - I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. Reddick, Durant, Curry, Korver, Martin, etc. all do a phenomenal job moving without the ball. Plus so many teams nowadays are focused on pick-and-rolls so it'd make more sense having shooters space the floor rather than draw up a series of off-ball screens to shoot a jumpshot that's going to be contested by a good defensive team

Point Guards bringing the ball up the sides - I literally only see this when they're calling a timeout or when teams are already pressing them to the sides. Not a big deal by any stretch of the imagination.

Not following your shot - You mean transition defense? It's more fundamentally sound to get back in transition.

Midrange jumpshot - Meh, that's just the transition of the game. Why not step back and go for 3 points instead of taking a long jumpshot for 2 points? Funny how players from the 80's and 90's never receive any criticism for failing to expand their range yet players nowadays are criticized for taking more efficient shots.

This is what's wrong with your type of argument. There is no objective method to keep track of something like how often players boxed out in the 90's compared to today. Everything is subjective and susceptible to human error/bias. It's an inherently poor argument.

As for big men, how many true post threats existed in the 90's anyways? Bigs like Garnett, Dirk, Amare, Webber, Love, Bosh, etc EXPANDED their games to involve perimeter skillsets to make them a more dynamic offensive threat. What fans don't realize is that not every team in the 90's had a Hakeem or Shaq on their roster. If you take the big men from the 90's and compare them to the bigs from the 00's, you'd realize as a collective group, the disparity in talent is nowhere near what the media wants you to believe. A player like Laimbeer would be a towel waver in today's league.

God damn this post gives me a full pronged boner. Couldn't have said it any better, well done.

[Y2K]

absolutely false.

Explain your reasoning please.

i have really nothing to add. much to my surprise, witness basically did a decent job defending the op. people confuse their favorite era with having better talent or stating the mind numbing canard that current players 'lack fundamentals'.

i loved the 80s and all but there was nothing special about those players outside of the usual handful of unique superstars each era has and that there was less teams making for more heated competition.

what was once exceptional, becomes fundamental as the game evolves.

See we agree on the depth of the 80's because for the longest there were only 23 teams. When i think of deeper talent pools, I think of the average depth of a team in each era.

I do think that the 10s have been better than any year in the 00s.

I think that the depth of the talent pool is on par with the 80s and pre-Canadian expansion 90s.

I'm more concerned with the overall level of skill of each given time period in relation to the progression of the sport as a whole than I am with a few sprinkles of a stretch 4 players.

[Y2K]

The biggest knock on this era is the near extinction of the true pivot big man and the "no-contact" rules.

[Repeat3peat]

The bulk of the big men can't even post up and be legit scorers. The main bigs who do score rely far more on athleticism, not skill.

Shooters moving without the ball - I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. Reddick, Durant, Curry, Korver, Martin, etc. all do a phenomenal job moving without the ball. Plus so many teams nowadays are focused on pick-and-rolls so it'd make more sense having shooters space the floor rather than draw up a series of off-ball screens to shoot a jumpshot that's going to be contested by a good defensive team

Point Guards bringing the ball up the sides - I literally only see this when they're calling a timeout or when teams are already pressing them to the sides. Not a big deal by any stretch of the imagination.

Not following your shot - You mean transition defense? It's more fundamentally sound to get back in transition.

Midrange jumpshot - Meh, that's just the transition of the game. Why not step back and go for 3 points instead of taking a long jumpshot for 2 points? Funny how players from the 80's and 90's never receive any criticism for failing to expand their range yet players nowadays are criticized for taking more efficient shots.

This is what's wrong with your type of argument. There is no objective method to keep track of something like how often players boxed out in the 90's compared to today. Everything is subjective and susceptible to human error/bias. It's an inherently poor argument.

As for big men, how many true post threats existed in the 90's anyways? Bigs like Garnett, Dirk, Amare, Webber, Love, Bosh, etc EXPANDED their games to involve perimeter skillsets to make them a more dynamic offensive threat. What fans don't realize is that not every team in the 90's had a Hakeem or Shaq on their roster. If you take the big men from the 90's and compare them to the bigs from the 00's, you'd realize as a collective group, the disparity in talent is nowhere near what the media wants you to believe. A player like Laimbeer would be a towel waver in today's league.

God damn this post gives me a full pronged boner. Couldn't have said it any better, well done.

lol @ getting a boner from baseless opinions.

[FPL]

Undecided.

[Y2K]

Undecided.

It's too complex of a subject for just a yes or no answer because there are so many ways to gauge the talent level of today and yesteryear.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I haven't rad through the thread, although I have read decent sized chunks of it here and there.

It's extremely difficult to compare across eras for a whole bunch of reasons.

When people say "the mid range jumper is gone now and fundamentals are weak", I generally attribute it to to lazy thinking.

I've been a fan of the game since Wilt was playing and the Buffalo Braves had all their home games on local cable.

I think people really underestimate the impact rule changes have had on how the game is played. In particular, the introduction of the 3 point shot dramatically changed the game. Its impact has been relatively gradual because when it was first introduced, it really wasn't a weapon that was largely used. The game was still played as much as possible in the post and you needed mid range shooters to help the threat in the post. The ability to hit long jumpers was there (guys like West, Randy Smith, Downtown Freddie Brown etc could make long 3s, but since they only counted as twos, who cared? So very few guys grew up really working on their 3 point shot because it didn't exist.

You could be a great guard 25 years ago and not have 3 point range. It's still possible today, but it really stacks the deck against you. The game has changed and the 3 point threat is not an oddity anymore, or a change up, but a big part of virtually every successful team. To really be successful now, an offense pretty much HAS to be able to hit 3s and have some type of very meaningful threat in the post to make the in and out game a true two pronged threat. That threat in the post can come from superior slashing skills in a guard or forward who has good passing ability to find open 3 point shooters (or with hockey assists to someone who finds the open 3 point shooter) or from a traditional post player who is adept at passing out of the double team.

At the end of the day, this has made the ability to hit the 18 footer which used to be prized, a far less important skill set and I think that is reflected in how the game is played now. Teams generally don't want to take many 20 footers. They want shots in the paint and 3s, and that is only logical. Pretty much every team now has guys who can play decent defense and whose biggest skill on offense is hitting open 3s. That simply wasn't the case way back in the day because there was no extra point for backing up 3 feet. It has taken a generation or two of players to truly see the impact of the addition of the 3 point line. It is very obvious now how it has dramatically changed how the game is played.

Has it reduced the ability of the average player to hit an 18 footer off the dribble. Probably it has, but to suggest that is proof of declining fundamentals is simply incorrect. It's more a reflection of what is valued in the game and the way we want offenses run to achieve maximum effectiveness.

[Repeat3peat]

Undecided.

It's too complex of a subject for just a yes or no answer because there are so many ways to gauge the talent level of today and yesteryear.

Not to mention the myriad of advantages todays players have in training, "supplements", travel and medicine.......etc.

[l3bron]

The biggest knock on this era is the near extinction of the true pivot big man and the "no-contact" rules.

What about the emergence of the stretch 4? Or the adoption of the corner 3? Or the evolution of defensive schemes forcing teams to shoot long inefficient 2-pointers (the staple of ugly 90's basketball)?

And I hope you're not referring to the removing of handchecking (which was instituted WHILE Jordan was in the league) with your latter comment. I can't think of a bigger lie told in sports than the impact of handchecking in basketball.