How Many Pts Would Jordan Average In Today's Eastern Conf?

[Y2K]

Weakest era since I've been alive is the current one. 2 teams worth a shit in an entire conference? That's pathetic.

Your own Lakers in the 80s were winning western conferences that were truly pathetic. In fact, if a guy wanted to play Devil's Advocate, he could say that there are six or seven teams with a legitimate chance to win a title this season, while for most of the 80s, there were only perhaps 3 a season. At the end of the day, like I said earlier, it's all bullshit to try to promote an agenda or point of view. Expansion this... well, does adding a few shitty teams make it easier for the true legitimate contenders? No. Again, it's all about the agenda someone wants to promote at the time.

Well stated. Some act like expansion meant that the existing teams had some kind of actual/noticeable talent poached from them. Not the case, the only players that were "exposed" were exposed for a reason...

Ppl talk like the Canadian teams had any real talent on them. Those two teams stunk and they basically took the other 27 teams's trash. The other teams didn't get worse with expansion. What made expansion look so bad was that the amateur/international talent was at a low during the mid-late 90s.

[vcsgrizzfan]

The "weak era" drama you keep trying to emphasize is getting a little old, but you do have a point buried in there.

The fact is that since the 1980s, there has definitely been a change in how games are called. This was particularly true starting in 2006 and is no longer quite as pronounced, but there nonetheless. There used to be far less difference in what constitutes a foul on the perimeter and what constitutes a foul in the post. It takes far less contact now (overall) to get a foul called on the perimeter than in the 1980s. Conversely, there are muggings that go on in the block now that go uncalled which clearly would have been called back then. This change benefited wings, particularly quick wings with the ability to get into the paint.

The 90s were the weakest era of the NBA, deezna - everybody who has a brain knows that.
As a matter of fact, Steve Gorman was talking about it today - How the first expansion was immediately noticeable in the quality of play, and even more noticeable after the second round.

Yet there are more teams in the league today AND the roster has been expanded... not to mention the fact that the EC is withOut question OR debate the weakest it's ever been.

I agree with the spirit of your prior post which compared Pierce and his FTAs to MJ and his. I think a lot of guys are seen as great wings today more because of rule changes and style of play than because the talent is better. It's not like they weren't great athletic slashers like Nique, Isiah, Drexler etc... who would have put up better numbers in today's environment, and other players like Dantley who had great numbers back in the day, who would be largely irrelevant in today's league.

This last post though, you revert to your normal complete blind agenda based self. Just over a decade ago, the east had NO chance of winning a title. Everybody knew that whoever came out of the east was going to lose to whoever came out of the west. The Sixers and Nets may have won a decent amount of games and there may have been fewer teams with crappy records that made the playoffs in the east, but in no way is this version of the east weaker. You have two teams now who truly are legitimate threats to win a title in Indiana and the Heat. Were it not for injuries, you might have four such teams. Back around the turn of the century, there were zero teams from the east that were legitimate title contenders.

[town bidness]

Weakest era since I've been alive is the current one. 2 teams worth a shit in an entire conference? That's pathetic.

Your own Lakers in the 80s were winning western conferences that were truly pathetic. In fact, if a guy wanted to play Devil's Advocate, he could say that there are six or seven teams with a legitimate chance to win a title this season, while for most of the 80s, there were only perhaps 3 a season. At the end of the day, like I said earlier, it's all bullshit to try to promote an agenda or point of view. Expansion this... well, does adding a few shitty teams make it easier for the true legitimate contenders? No. Again, it's all about the agenda someone wants to promote at the time.

people keep saying how pathetic the west was but by what metric?

the record shows the conferences were basically parallel with a few game difference either way throughout the decade. so by what standard was the west weak? never mind the west had the most championships wit the same number of championship franchises as the east..

the '00 had a lopsided league with kobe and duncan in the west. look at what it took to get into the playoffs in the west. the 80s had showtime but people must pretend the west was weak like the east is now for lebron. that's not remotely close to true.

[town bidness]

What difference? A big difference. A big point of why MJ would average more points today is because of the treatment wing players get now days compared to the past. Players today sit and whine and cry for a foul everytime down the court. They are weak. Players played through this weak crap back in the day and went hard til they heard a whistle rather than let up when they dont get a call. Whine and whine some more about being breathed on too heavy. Man up and play the fucking game. Weakest era i've seen.

The "weak era" drama you keep trying to emphasize is getting a little old, but you do have a point buried in there.

The fact is that since the 1980s, there has definitely been a change in how games are called. This was particularly true starting in 2006 and is no longer quite as pronounced, but there nonetheless. There used to be far less difference in what constitutes a foul on the perimeter and what constitutes a foul in the post. It takes far less contact now (overall) to get a foul called on the perimeter than in the 1980s. Conversely, there are muggings that go on in the block now that go uncalled which clearly would have been called back then. This change benefited wings, particularly quick wings with the ability to get into the paint.

The 90s were the weakest era of the NBA, deezna - everybody who has a brain knows that.
As a matter of fact, Steve Gorman was talking about it today - How the first expansion was immediately noticeable in the quality of play, and even more noticeable after the second round.

everyone knows the 90s were woefully weak for all the reasons that have been well stated. far too rapid expansion, notable deaths, early retirements, only one great team in the league for an entire decade, etc.

why must we pretend?

[thedangerouskitchen]

The 90s were the weakest era of the NBA, deezna - everybody who has a brain knows that.
As a matter of fact, Steve Gorman was talking about it today - How the first expansion was immediately noticeable in the quality of play, and even more noticeable after the second round.

Yet there are more teams in the league today AND the roster has been expanded... not to mention the fact that the EC is withOut question OR debate the weakest it's ever been.

I agree with the spirit of your prior post which compared Pierce and his FTAs to MJ and his. I think a lot of guys are seen as great wings today more because of rule changes and style of play than because the talent is better. It's not like they weren't great athletic slashers like Nique, Isiah, Drexler etc... who would have put up better numbers in today's environment, and other players like Dantley who had great numbers back in the day, who would be largely irrelevant in today's league.

This last post though, you revert to your normal complete blind agenda based self. Just over a decade ago, the east had NO chance of winning a title. Everybody knew that whoever came out of the east was going to lose to whoever came out of the west. The Sixers and Nets may have won a decent amount of games and there may have been fewer teams with crappy records that made the playoffs in the east, but in no way is this version of the east weaker. You have two teams now who truly are legitimate threats to win a title in Indiana and the Heat. Were it not for injuries, you might have four such teams. Back around the turn of the century, there were zero teams from the east that were legitimate title contenders.

The larger point of my post was lost because of your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong (lol)... that being, I was comparing today's NBA as a whole to the 90's.

...and FTR the EC winner went on to win the Championship 5 times in the last 10 years (04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 / 13 Heat). The 5 years prior to that is was all WC, but prior to that is was all EC (ie; the Bulls). So your point isn't exactly all that relevant with respect to the point I was making.

[elmerjfudd]

he's the greatest individual talent the game has ever seen. He would score how much he wants because that is his demeanor, to be the best individual in a team sport... MJ's play influenced the likes of Kobe, AI, Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis and many other Superstars to low end superstars. MJ was like the Mcdonald's of the NBA, but I like to eat great.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Weakest era since I've been alive is the current one. 2 teams worth a shit in an entire conference? That's pathetic.

Your own Lakers in the 80s were winning western conferences that were truly pathetic. In fact, if a guy wanted to play Devil's Advocate, he could say that there are six or seven teams with a legitimate chance to win a title this season, while for most of the 80s, there were only perhaps 3 a season. At the end of the day, like I said earlier, it's all bullshit to try to promote an agenda or point of view. Expansion this... well, does adding a few shitty teams make it easier for the true legitimate contenders? No. Again, it's all about the agenda someone wants to promote at the time.

people keep saying how pathetic the west was but by what metric?

the record shows the conferences were basically parallel with a few game difference either way throughout the decade. so by what standard was the west weak? never mind the west had the most championships wit the same number of championship franchises as the east..

the '00 had a lopsided league with kobe and duncan in the west. look at what it took to get into the playoffs in the west. the 80s had showtime but people must pretend the west was weak like the east is now for lebron. that's not remotely close to true.

The west was extremely flawed in the 80s. In the first Lakers title year, the Spurs were George Gervin and a bag of pucks. Only one other team in the west won over 50 games outside of the Lakers and that was the Sonics, who were a bunch of nobodies. That is a recurring theme in the 80s in the west. Lakers had almost a free run out of the west. They had to beat brutally flawed teams like the Spurs and Suns. In 1984, only the Lakers even won 50 games in the west. When they won their second title of the 80s in 1985, they had to beat the Nuggets, the only other team to win 50 that season in the west that were good offensively with Issell and English, but horrendous defensively, giving up 117 a game. Pretty much through the entire 1980s, the Lakers had very little competition in the west. Teams would pop their head for a year or two like the Mavs, but they were hardly real contenders. Usually only one or two teams ever got to 50 wins except for the Lakers who were winning 60 plus with a truly stacked roster. It is what it is. Trying to pretend the Lakers were not having an easy path in the west in the 80s is either revisionist history or homerism.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Yet there are more teams in the league today AND the roster has been expanded... not to mention the fact that the EC is withOut question OR debate the weakest it's ever been.

I agree with the spirit of your prior post which compared Pierce and his FTAs to MJ and his. I think a lot of guys are seen as great wings today more because of rule changes and style of play than because the talent is better. It's not like they weren't great athletic slashers like Nique, Isiah, Drexler etc... who would have put up better numbers in today's environment, and other players like Dantley who had great numbers back in the day, who would be largely irrelevant in today's league.

This last post though, you revert to your normal complete blind agenda based self. Just over a decade ago, the east had NO chance of winning a title. Everybody knew that whoever came out of the east was going to lose to whoever came out of the west. The Sixers and Nets may have won a decent amount of games and there may have been fewer teams with crappy records that made the playoffs in the east, but in no way is this version of the east weaker. You have two teams now who truly are legitimate threats to win a title in Indiana and the Heat. Were it not for injuries, you might have four such teams. Back around the turn of the century, there were zero teams from the east that were legitimate title contenders.

The larger point of my post was lost because of your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong (lol)... that being, I was comparing today's NBA as a whole to the 90's.

...and FTR the EC winner went on to win the Championship 5 times in the last 10 years (04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 / 13 Heat). The 5 years prior to that is was all WC, but prior to that is was all EC (ie; the Bulls). So your point isn't exactly all that relevant with respect to the point I was making.

Of course my point is relevant. The East had ZERO contenders at the turn of the century. Winning the west meant winning the NBA championship. San Antonio or the Lakers were not going to lose to the Sixers or Nets. Even 2004 was still meant to be a coronation for the Lakers, but the Pistons spoiled that party when Kobe tried to win finals MVP, Malone got injured and Payton got old overnight. Since then, the title has been a fair fight with the exception of 2007 when the Pistons took the Cavs for granted and got beat by a pretty poor overall team. Whoever wins the east has a good shot and whoever wins the west has a good shot. That sure as hell was not the case at the turn of the century.

[thedangerouskitchen]

I agree with the spirit of your prior post which compared Pierce and his FTAs to MJ and his. I think a lot of guys are seen as great wings today more because of rule changes and style of play than because the talent is better. It's not like they weren't great athletic slashers like Nique, Isiah, Drexler etc... who would have put up better numbers in today's environment, and other players like Dantley who had great numbers back in the day, who would be largely irrelevant in today's league.

This last post though, you revert to your normal complete blind agenda based self. Just over a decade ago, the east had NO chance of winning a title. Everybody knew that whoever came out of the east was going to lose to whoever came out of the west. The Sixers and Nets may have won a decent amount of games and there may have been fewer teams with crappy records that made the playoffs in the east, but in no way is this version of the east weaker. You have two teams now who truly are legitimate threats to win a title in Indiana and the Heat. Were it not for injuries, you might have four such teams. Back around the turn of the century, there were zero teams from the east that were legitimate title contenders.

The larger point of my post was lost because of your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong (lol)... that being, I was comparing today's NBA as a whole to the 90's.

...and FTR the EC winner went on to win the Championship 5 times in the last 10 years (04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 / 13 Heat). The 5 years prior to that is was all WC, but prior to that is was all EC (ie; the Bulls). So your point isn't exactly all that relevant with respect to the point I was making.

Of course my point is relevant. The East had ZERO contenders at the turn of the century. Winning the west meant winning the NBA championship. San Antonio or the Lakers were not going to lose to the Sixers or Nets. Even 2004 was still meant to be a coronation for the Lakers, but the Pistons spoiled that party when Kobe tried to win finals MVP, Malone got injured and Payton got old overnight. Since then, the title has been a fair fight. Whoever wins the east has a good shot and whoever wins the west has a good shot. That sure as hell was not the case at the turn of the century.

So 2 teams make up an entire conference, in your mind.

Cool... but whatever... you want to argue the EC was weaker in the 00's so be it. I'm comparing the NBA in general (and the EC as a whole) today vs. the league in the 90's.

[vcsgrizzfan]

The larger point of my post was lost because of your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong (lol)... that being, I was comparing today's NBA as a whole to the 90's.

...and FTR the EC winner went on to win the Championship 5 times in the last 10 years (04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 / 13 Heat). The 5 years prior to that is was all WC, but prior to that is was all EC (ie; the Bulls). So your point isn't exactly all that relevant with respect to the point I was making.

Of course my point is relevant. The East had ZERO contenders at the turn of the century. Winning the west meant winning the NBA championship. San Antonio or the Lakers were not going to lose to the Sixers or Nets. Even 2004 was still meant to be a coronation for the Lakers, but the Pistons spoiled that party when Kobe tried to win finals MVP, Malone got injured and Payton got old overnight. Since then, the title has been a fair fight. Whoever wins the east has a good shot and whoever wins the west has a good shot. That sure as hell was not the case at the turn of the century.

So 2 teams make up an entire conference, in your mind.

Cool... but whatever... you want to argue the EC was weaker in the 00's so be it. I'm comparing the NBA in general (and the EC as a whole) today vs. the league in the 90's.

Again, it's all agenda based. If you want to denigrate the 80s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the 90s, you can come up with good reasons, If you want to denigrate the 2000s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the current era, you can come up with good reasons. At the end of the day, in my mind, its all bullshit and agenda based.

[town bidness]

Your own Lakers in the 80s were winning western conferences that were truly pathetic. In fact, if a guy wanted to play Devil's Advocate, he could say that there are six or seven teams with a legitimate chance to win a title this season, while for most of the 80s, there were only perhaps 3 a season. At the end of the day, like I said earlier, it's all bullshit to try to promote an agenda or point of view. Expansion this... well, does adding a few shitty teams make it easier for the true legitimate contenders? No. Again, it's all about the agenda someone wants to promote at the time.

people keep saying how pathetic the west was but by what metric?

the record shows the conferences were basically parallel with a few game difference either way throughout the decade. so by what standard was the west weak? never mind the west had the most championships wit the same number of championship franchises as the east..

the '00 had a lopsided league with kobe and duncan in the west. look at what it took to get into the playoffs in the west. the 80s had showtime but people must pretend the west was weak like the east is now for lebron. that's not remotely close to true.

The west was extremely flawed in the 80s. In the first Lakers title year, the Spurs were George Gervin and a back of pucks. Only one other team in the west won over 50 games outside of the Lakers and that was the Sonics, who were a bunch of nobodies. That is a recurring theme in the 80s in the west. Lakers had almost a free run out of the west. They had to beat brutally flawed teams like the Spurs and Suns. In 1984, only the Lakers even won 50 games in the west. When they won their second title of the 80s in 1985, they had to beat the Nuggets, the only other team to win 50 that season in the west that were good offensively with Issell and English, but horrendous defensively, giving up 117 a game. Pretty much through the entire 1980s, the Lakers had very little competition in the west. Teams would pop their head for a year or two like the Mavs, but they were hardly real contenders. Usually only one or two teams ever got to 50 wins except for the Lakers who were winning 60 plus with a truly stacked roster. It is what it is. Trying to pretend the Lakers were not having an easy path in the west in the 80s is either revisionist history or homerism.

again, by what metric is the west considered weak in the 80s. i can point you directly to why the east has been weak for a long time since the '00s.

i dont need a summation of the decade, i want data. take a look at each year during that decade and what it took in each conference to get into the playoffs. where is the east being so much more difficult than the west?

in the west the eighth seed had the better record 5 times, once they tied and the east ended up with the eighth seed having the better record 4 times. this is in light of again.. the west having more championships with the same number of championship teams.

the data contradicts your entire premise.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Of course my point is relevant. The East had ZERO contenders at the turn of the century. Winning the west meant winning the NBA championship. San Antonio or the Lakers were not going to lose to the Sixers or Nets. Even 2004 was still meant to be a coronation for the Lakers, but the Pistons spoiled that party when Kobe tried to win finals MVP, Malone got injured and Payton got old overnight. Since then, the title has been a fair fight. Whoever wins the east has a good shot and whoever wins the west has a good shot. That sure as hell was not the case at the turn of the century.

So 2 teams make up an entire conference, in your mind.

Cool... but whatever... you want to argue the EC was weaker in the 00's so be it. I'm comparing the NBA in general (and the EC as a whole) today vs. the league in the 90's.

Again, it's all agenda based. If you want to denigrate the 80s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the 90s, you can come up with good reasons, If you want to denigrate the 2000s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the current era, you can come up with good reasons. At the end of the day, in my mind, its all bullshit and agenda based.

Everything is agenda based, not just sports... but with respect to sports, disagreement is why we have debates and IMO that's a big part of the fun of being a fan.

Crusty farts like you should keep away from threads like this, since it's all bullshit to you.

[vcsgrizzfan]

people keep saying how pathetic the west was but by what metric?

the record shows the conferences were basically parallel with a few game difference either way throughout the decade. so by what standard was the west weak? never mind the west had the most championships wit the same number of championship franchises as the east..

the '00 had a lopsided league with kobe and duncan in the west. look at what it took to get into the playoffs in the west. the 80s had showtime but people must pretend the west was weak like the east is now for lebron. that's not remotely close to true.

The west was extremely flawed in the 80s. In the first Lakers title year, the Spurs were George Gervin and a back of pucks. Only one other team in the west won over 50 games outside of the Lakers and that was the Sonics, who were a bunch of nobodies. That is a recurring theme in the 80s in the west. Lakers had almost a free run out of the west. They had to beat brutally flawed teams like the Spurs and Suns. In 1984, only the Lakers even won 50 games in the west. When they won their second title of the 80s in 1985, they had to beat the Nuggets, the only other team to win 50 that season in the west that were good offensively with Issell and English, but horrendous defensively, giving up 117 a game. Pretty much through the entire 1980s, the Lakers had very little competition in the west. Teams would pop their head for a year or two like the Mavs, but they were hardly real contenders. Usually only one or two teams ever got to 50 wins except for the Lakers who were winning 60 plus with a truly stacked roster. It is what it is. Trying to pretend the Lakers were not having an easy path in the west in the 80s is either revisionist history or homerism.

again, by what metric is the west considered weak in the 80s. i cant point you directly to why the east has been weak for a long time since the '00s.

i dont need a summation of the decade, i want data. take a look at each year during that decade and what it took in each conference to get into the playoffs. where is the east being so much more difficult than the west?

in the west the eighth seed had the better record 5 times, once they tied and the east ended up with the eighth seed having the better record 4 times. this is in light of again.. the west having more championships with the same number of championship teams.

the data contradicts your entire premise.

I beg to differ. The West had the Lakers and no other real contenders. Who did they have to beat? The Spurs who had Gervin and ??? The Nuggets a little later on who had a few talented offensive players but played no defense. At most, one or two other teams were winning 50 games a season. Were they true contenders? Were the Sonics really a contended when they won 50 one season? Who was on that team that you can remember as memorable?

People tend to focus on what the records are of teams that barely squeak into the playoffs. That is just idiotic. Who cares about the bottom feeders? Once in a generation or two or three, like the Rockets in the 95 a late seed actually wins a conference title. It's not the records of teams that barely make it that matters, it is how many true contenders do you really have? By your metrics, you could make the case that the east is weaker now than it was in 2000 and yet that is truly stupid. Everyone knows that the east had no real elite teams in 2000. It was a contest to find the tallest midget, who was then going to be a sacrificial lamb to whoever came out of the west, be it the Lakers or the Spurs.

Look, I know you are a Lakers fan and see everything through a purple and gold haze. But trying to pretend the Lakers didn't have an easy route through the west in the 80s is living in an alternate universe.

[vcsgrizzfan]

So 2 teams make up an entire conference, in your mind.

Cool... but whatever... you want to argue the EC was weaker in the 00's so be it. I'm comparing the NBA in general (and the EC as a whole) today vs. the league in the 90's.

Again, it's all agenda based. If you want to denigrate the 80s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the 90s, you can come up with good reasons, If you want to denigrate the 2000s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the current era, you can come up with good reasons. At the end of the day, in my mind, its all bullshit and agenda based.

Everything is agenda based, not just sports... but with respect to sports, disagreement is why we have debates and IMO that's a big part of the fun of being a fan.

Crusty farts like you should keep away from threads like this, since it's all bullshit to you.

Everyone has biases. The trick is the ability to recognize them and try to not let them cloud reality. I try very hard to do that in every facet of my life. Being "agnostic' and trying to separate bullshit from fact has made me a lot of money in the stock market.

[town bidness]

The west was extremely flawed in the 80s. In the first Lakers title year, the Spurs were George Gervin and a back of pucks. Only one other team in the west won over 50 games outside of the Lakers and that was the Sonics, who were a bunch of nobodies. That is a recurring theme in the 80s in the west. Lakers had almost a free run out of the west. They had to beat brutally flawed teams like the Spurs and Suns. In 1984, only the Lakers even won 50 games in the west. When they won their second title of the 80s in 1985, they had to beat the Nuggets, the only other team to win 50 that season in the west that were good offensively with Issell and English, but horrendous defensively, giving up 117 a game. Pretty much through the entire 1980s, the Lakers had very little competition in the west. Teams would pop their head for a year or two like the Mavs, but they were hardly real contenders. Usually only one or two teams ever got to 50 wins except for the Lakers who were winning 60 plus with a truly stacked roster. It is what it is. Trying to pretend the Lakers were not having an easy path in the west in the 80s is either revisionist history or homerism.

again, by what metric is the west considered weak in the 80s. i cant point you directly to why the east has been weak for a long time since the '00s.

i dont need a summation of the decade, i want data. take a look at each year during that decade and what it took in each conference to get into the playoffs. where is the east being so much more difficult than the west?

in the west the eighth seed had the better record 5 times, once they tied and the east ended up with the eighth seed having the better record 4 times. this is in light of again.. the west having more championships with the same number of championship teams.

the data contradicts your entire premise.

I beg to differ. The West had the Lakers and no other real contenders. Who did they have to beat? The Spurs who had Gervin and ??? The Nuggets a little later on who had a few talented offensive players but played no defense. At most, one or two other teams were winning 50 games a season. Were they true contenders? Were the Sonics really a contended when they won 50 one season? Who was on that team that you can remember as memorable?

People tend to focus on what the records are of teams that barely squeak into the playoffs. That is just idiotic. Who cares about the bottom feeders? Once in a generation or two or three, like the Rockets in the 95 a late seed actually wins a conference title. It's not the records of teams that barely make it that matters, it is how many true contenders do you really have? By your metrics, you could make the case that the east is weaker now than it was in 2000 and yet that is truly stupid. Everyone knows that the east had no real elite teams in 2000. It was a contest to find the tallest midget, who was then going to be a sacrificial lamb to whoever came out of the west, be it the Lakers or the Spurs.

Look, I know you are a Lakers fan and see everything through a purple and gold haze. But trying to pretend the Lakers didn't have an easy route through the west in the 80s is living in an alternate universe.

lol, me being a laker fan has nothing to do with anything. i loathe bullshit.

if you are going to talk about which conference is better or worse.... the better record going into the playoffs is a perfect measure since there are only so many wins the teams in either conference can accumulate. if there is a major difference between the conferences, it shows up here. we already know the west had the better teams at the top of the conference. that's not up for debate.

it's also exactly what one looks at now to see how miserable the east TRULY has been. not the bullshit rationale repeated around here.

you can state how much better the east was but you sure as hell cant prove it. anytime you find some data that backs up your assertion (you wont), let me know, lol.

the conferences were mostly equal with exception to the greatest modern dynasty. you will have to just accept it.

[vcsgrizzfan]

again, by what metric is the west considered weak in the 80s. i cant point you directly to why the east has been weak for a long time since the '00s.

i dont need a summation of the decade, i want data. take a look at each year during that decade and what it took in each conference to get into the playoffs. where is the east being so much more difficult than the west?

in the west the eighth seed had the better record 5 times, once they tied and the east ended up with the eighth seed having the better record 4 times. this is in light of again.. the west having more championships with the same number of championship teams.

the data contradicts your entire premise.

I beg to differ. The West had the Lakers and no other real contenders. Who did they have to beat? The Spurs who had Gervin and ??? The Nuggets a little later on who had a few talented offensive players but played no defense. At most, one or two other teams were winning 50 games a season. Were they true contenders? Were the Sonics really a contended when they won 50 one season? Who was on that team that you can remember as memorable?

People tend to focus on what the records are of teams that barely squeak into the playoffs. That is just idiotic. Who cares about the bottom feeders? Once in a generation or two or three, like the Rockets in the 95 a late seed actually wins a conference title. It's not the records of teams that barely make it that matters, it is how many true contenders do you really have? By your metrics, you could make the case that the east is weaker now than it was in 2000 and yet that is truly stupid. Everyone knows that the east had no real elite teams in 2000. It was a contest to find the tallest midget, who was then going to be a sacrificial lamb to whoever came out of the west, be it the Lakers or the Spurs.

Look, I know you are a Lakers fan and see everything through a purple and gold haze. But trying to pretend the Lakers didn't have an easy route through the west in the 80s is living in an alternate universe.

lol, me being a laker fan has nothing to do with anything. i loathe bullshit.

if you are going to talk about which conference is better or worse.... the better record going into the playoffs is a perfect measure since there are only so many wins the teams in either conference can accumulate. if there is a major difference between the conferences, it shows up here. we already know the west had the better teams at the top of the conference. that's not up for debate.

it's also exactly what one looks at now to see how miserable the east TRULY has been. not the bullshit rationale repeated around here.

you can state how much better the east was but you sure as hell cant prove it. anytime you find some data that backs up your assertion (you wont), let me know, lol.

the conferences were mostly equal with except to the greatest modern dynasty. you will have to just accept it.

Believe what you want. It's not like I'm saying the East had a ton of contenders either. Early on, the Sixers were a great team with Malone, Erving, Toney and earlier Cheeks, Dawkins, Jones. They were great teams. Later in the decade, the Pistons were also a great team and I don't think I need to go through their roster.

Fact is, the Lakers were playing patty cake teams in comparison. I really don't give a crap if you don't like it. I've seen you long enough to know you are one of the least objective posters on the board so it's almost a compliment when you disagree.

[Repeat3peat]

again, by what metric is the west considered weak in the 80s. i cant point you directly to why the east has been weak for a long time since the '00s.

i dont need a summation of the decade, i want data. take a look at each year during that decade and what it took in each conference to get into the playoffs. where is the east being so much more difficult than the west?

in the west the eighth seed had the better record 5 times, once they tied and the east ended up with the eighth seed having the better record 4 times. this is in light of again.. the west having more championships with the same number of championship teams.

the data contradicts your entire premise.

I beg to differ. The West had the Lakers and no other real contenders. Who did they have to beat? The Spurs who had Gervin and ??? The Nuggets a little later on who had a few talented offensive players but played no defense. At most, one or two other teams were winning 50 games a season. Were they true contenders? Were the Sonics really a contended when they won 50 one season? Who was on that team that you can remember as memorable?

People tend to focus on what the records are of teams that barely squeak into the playoffs. That is just idiotic. Who cares about the bottom feeders? Once in a generation or two or three, like the Rockets in the 95 a late seed actually wins a conference title. It's not the records of teams that barely make it that matters, it is how many true contenders do you really have? By your metrics, you could make the case that the east is weaker now than it was in 2000 and yet that is truly stupid. Everyone knows that the east had no real elite teams in 2000. It was a contest to find the tallest midget, who was then going to be a sacrificial lamb to whoever came out of the west, be it the Lakers or the Spurs.

Look, I know you are a Lakers fan and see everything through a purple and gold haze. But trying to pretend the Lakers didn't have an easy route through the west in the 80s is living in an alternate universe.

lol, me being a laker fan has nothing to do with anything. i loathe bullshit.

if you are going to talk about which conference is better or worse.... the better record going into the playoffs is a perfect measure since there are only so many wins the teams in either conference can accumulate. if there is a major difference between the conferences, it shows up here. we already know the west had the better teams at the top of the conference. that's not up for debate.

it's also exactly what one looks at now to see how miserable the east TRULY has been. not the bullshit rationale repeated around here.

you can state how much better the east was but you sure as hell cant prove it. anytime you find some data that backs up your assertion (you wont), let me know, lol.

the conferences were mostly equal with exception to the greatest modern dynasty. you will have to just accept it.

The Bulls had moved to the Eastern Conference by the time they accomplished that feat.....They appreciate your recognition none the less.

[Y2K]

I beg to differ. The West had the Lakers and no other real contenders. Who did they have to beat? The Spurs who had Gervin and ??? The Nuggets a little later on who had a few talented offensive players but played no defense. At most, one or two other teams were winning 50 games a season. Were they true contenders? Were the Sonics really a contended when they won 50 one season? Who was on that team that you can remember as memorable?

People tend to focus on what the records are of teams that barely squeak into the playoffs. That is just idiotic. Who cares about the bottom feeders? Once in a generation or two or three, like the Rockets in the 95 a late seed actually wins a conference title. It's not the records of teams that barely make it that matters, it is how many true contenders do you really have? By your metrics, you could make the case that the east is weaker now than it was in 2000 and yet that is truly stupid. Everyone knows that the east had no real elite teams in 2000. It was a contest to find the tallest midget, who was then going to be a sacrificial lamb to whoever came out of the west, be it the Lakers or the Spurs.

Look, I know you are a Lakers fan and see everything through a purple and gold haze. But trying to pretend the Lakers didn't have an easy route through the west in the 80s is living in an alternate universe.

lol, me being a laker fan has nothing to do with anything. i loathe bullshit.

if you are going to talk about which conference is better or worse.... the better record going into the playoffs is a perfect measure since there are only so many wins the teams in either conference can accumulate. if there is a major difference between the conferences, it shows up here. we already know the west had the better teams at the top of the conference. that's not up for debate.

it's also exactly what one looks at now to see how miserable the east TRULY has been. not the bullshit rationale repeated around here.

you can state how much better the east was but you sure as hell cant prove it. anytime you find some data that backs up your assertion (you wont), let me know, lol.

the conferences were mostly equal with except to the greatest modern dynasty. you will have to just accept it.

Believe what you want. It's not like I'm saying the East had a ton of contenders either. Early on, the Sixers were a great team with Malone, Erving, Toney and earlier Cheeks, Dawkins, Jones. They were great teams. Later in the decade, the Pistons were also a great team and I don't think I need to go through their roster.

Fact is, the Lakers were playing patty cake teams in comparison. I really don't give a crap if you don't like it. I've seen you long enough to know you are one of the least objective posters on the board so it's almost a compliment when you disagree.

The Celtics, Bucks, 76ers, Pistons and Hawks had great teams in the 80s. It was a battle every season to come out of that conference.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Again, it's all agenda based. If you want to denigrate the 80s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the 90s, you can come up with good reasons, If you want to denigrate the 2000s, you can come up with good reasons. If you want to denigrate the current era, you can come up with good reasons. At the end of the day, in my mind, its all bullshit and agenda based.

Everything is agenda based, not just sports... but with respect to sports, disagreement is why we have debates and IMO that's a big part of the fun of being a fan.

Crusty farts like you should keep away from threads like this, since it's all bullshit to you.

Everyone has biases. The trick is the ability to recognize them and try to not let them cloud reality. I try very hard to do that in every facet of my life. Being "agnostic' and trying to separate bullshit from fact has made me a lot of money in the stock market.

This is a message board, not the "real world"... and the Art of Bullshitting has made me a lot of money as well. Different strokes for different folks; however I do find it rather odd that you spend so much time participating in the sort of discussions (and WITH the sort of posters) that you claim to loathe.

[Shill Jackson]

The "weak era" drama you keep trying to emphasize is getting a little old, but you do have a point buried in there.

The fact is that since the 1980s, there has definitely been a change in how games are called. This was particularly true starting in 2006 and is no longer quite as pronounced, but there nonetheless. There used to be far less difference in what constitutes a foul on the perimeter and what constitutes a foul in the post. It takes far less contact now (overall) to get a foul called on the perimeter than in the 1980s. Conversely, there are muggings that go on in the block now that go uncalled which clearly would have been called back then. This change benefited wings, particularly quick wings with the ability to get into the paint.

The 90s were the weakest era of the NBA, deezna - everybody who has a brain knows that.
As a matter of fact, Steve Gorman was talking about it today - How the first expansion was immediately noticeable in the quality of play, and even more noticeable after the second round.

I think that is freaking nonsense. The whole notion of "weak era" is pushed by agendas, and depending on the agenda being pushed, the "weak" era changes. It's all bullshit.

It's not bullshit, it's completely logical.
When you add six teams, that adds a lot of players who would not have been in the league otherwise.
To act like that didn't affect the level of play isn't realistic.
Foreign players made a huge impact in the 00s and did a lot to correct expansion's deterioration.
As far as the 10s, let's wait till the decade is over - but it's clear that 1 and done, and the cap are doing horrible things.