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

[vcsgrizzfan]

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.

Yes, over a long period of time, a number of teams were added. So what? Did that gut the rosters of the great teams? I can assure you that the Grizzlies and Raptors did not get anyone good from anyone, and in fact had draft rules completely stacked against them (sorry if you are too young to remember that). Does adding bottom feeders really affect anything that matters? You and bidness are at the other end of the spectrum of tdk and dwcmwa. You think you are being logical and objective, but you are so biased it's almost laughable.

[vcsgrizzfan]

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.

This message board and its predecessors are the only ones I have ever posted on. While "agnostic", I still hope to spread the gospel of logic. Call me the Spock of these boards.

[Shill Jackson]

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.

Yes, over a long period of time, a number of teams were added. So what? Did that gut the rosters of the great teams? I can assure you that the Grizzlies and Raptors did not get anyone good from anyone, and in fact had draft rules completely stacked against them (sorry if you are too young to remember that). Does adding bottom feeders really affect anything that matters? You and bidness are at the other end of the spectrum of tdk and dwcmwa. You think you are being logical and objective, but you are so biased it's almost laughable.

Still using your "So what?" response I see. Brilliant.
The expansion we are discussing didn't occur over "a long period of time", it occurred from 88-95. 7 years.
Of those 6 teams, 4 were in the East.
Did it affect the level of play? Of course it did.
Did it mean that the top teams had many "tomato can" games that inflated their record? Of course it did.
If you want to focus on who's biased, look in the mirror.

[dwcmwa]

55 ppg

[Y2K]

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.

Yes, over a long period of time, a number of teams were added. So what? Did that gut the rosters of the great teams? I can assure you that the Grizzlies and Raptors did not get anyone good from anyone, and in fact had draft rules completely stacked against them (sorry if you are too young to remember that). Does adding bottom feeders really affect anything that matters? You and bidness are at the other end of the spectrum of tdk and dwcmwa. You think you are being logical and objective, but you are so biased it's almost laughable.

Still using your "So what?" response I see. Brilliant.
The expansion we are discussing didn't occur over "a long period of time", it occurred from 88-95. 7 years.
Of those 6 teams, 4 were in the East.
Did it affect the level of play? Of course it did.
Did it mean that the top teams had many "tomato can" games that inflated their record? Of course it did.
If you want to focus on who's biased, look in the mirror.

There was enough talent to add 4 teams so that's not even an issue. The real issue is the Canadian expansion and weaker Draft classes of the mid 90s.

But of course you keep avoiding the fact that yet another expansion team was added in the 00s with the horrid influx of prep-to-pro that overall brought in even weaker Draft classes than the 90s had. This notion that international talent made the 00s better is BS.

With that being said, I do feel that the 10s will bring much better basketball than the 00s.

[Robceltsfan]

So Bidness is trying to say the WC in the 80's was equal to the EC? Good grief man. Your credibility takes hits on an almost daily basis...

The record of the losing team in the Conference Finals for the years of 79-80 through 88-89 are as follows:

West: 488-332 .595
East: 558-262 .680

There are three separate years where the losing team of the WCF during this period was at or below .500 ('81 KC, '84 PHX, '87 SEA). In 1981, BOTH teams were below .500 and the Western Conference representative in the Finals had a regular season record of 40-42 (Houston, which beat Kareem and Magic in Round 1).

There was never a losing team with more than 56 wins in the WCF and there was a sub-50 win team as the loser four times.

In the East there were 6 ECF losing teams with 57 or more wins and three of those teams had 60+ wins.

No honest person can say that the West was a good conference outside of the city of Los Angeles during the 80's. It was as weak or weaker than the East has been the past 10-15 years.

[Bush4Ever]

wow grizz got destroyed in this thread lmao

[Deez]

wow grizz got destroyed in this thread lmao

Actually those laker homers got destroyed

[Bush4Ever]

wow grizz got destroyed in this thread lmao

Actually those laker homers got destroyed

I know.

[Repeat3peat]

wow grizz got destroyed in this thread lmao

Actually those laker homers got destroyed

I was going to say....maybe bush still has sleep in his eyes or something. grizz + others dismantled the Kome kids....and it isn't close.

He knows this tho. maybe.

[Y2K]

So Bidness is trying to say the WC in the 80's was equal to the EC? Good grief man. Your credibility takes hits on an almost daily basis...

The record of the losing team in the Conference Finals for the years of 79-80 through 88-89 are as follows:

West: 488-332 .595
East: 558-262 .680

There are three separate years where the losing team of the WCF during this period was at or below .500 ('81 KC, '84 PHX, '87 SEA). In 1981, BOTH teams were below .500 and the Western Conference representative in the Finals had a regular season record of 40-42 (Houston, which beat Kareem and Magic in Round 1).

There was never a losing team with more than 56 wins in the WCF and there was a sub-50 win team as the loser four times.

In the East there were 6 ECF losing teams with 57 or more wins and three of those teams had 60+ wins.

No honest person can say that the West was a good conference outside of the city of Los Angeles during the 80's. It was as weak or weaker than the East has been the past 10-15 years.

The Lakers were the only team from the west that could beat the top 3 teams from the east. But 5 times out of 8, they did so.

I do feel that while Boston only won 3, they were just as great as the Lakers were in that decade.

[Robceltsfan]

So Bidness is trying to say the WC in the 80's was equal to the EC? Good grief man. Your credibility takes hits on an almost daily basis...

The record of the losing team in the Conference Finals for the years of 79-80 through 88-89 are as follows:

West: 488-332 .595
East: 558-262 .680

There are three separate years where the losing team of the WCF during this period was at or below .500 ('81 KC, '84 PHX, '87 SEA). In 1981, BOTH teams were below .500 and the Western Conference representative in the Finals had a regular season record of 40-42 (Houston, which beat Kareem and Magic in Round 1).

There was never a losing team with more than 56 wins in the WCF and there was a sub-50 win team as the loser four times.

In the East there were 6 ECF losing teams with 57 or more wins and three of those teams had 60+ wins.

No honest person can say that the West was a good conference outside of the city of Los Angeles during the 80's. It was as weak or weaker than the East has been the past 10-15 years.

The Lakers were the only team from the west that could beat the top 3 teams from the east. But 5 times out of 8, they did so.

I do feel that while Boston only won 3, they were just as great as the Lakers were in that decade.

I agree with this. Boston wasn't able to make it to the Finals as often as L.A. because they had a much harder road to travel.

[Shill Jackson]

Yes, over a long period of time, a number of teams were added. So what? Did that gut the rosters of the great teams? I can assure you that the Grizzlies and Raptors did not get anyone good from anyone, and in fact had draft rules completely stacked against them (sorry if you are too young to remember that). Does adding bottom feeders really affect anything that matters? You and bidness are at the other end of the spectrum of tdk and dwcmwa. You think you are being logical and objective, but you are so biased it's almost laughable.

Still using your "So what?" response I see. Brilliant.
The expansion we are discussing didn't occur over "a long period of time", it occurred from 88-95. 7 years.
Of those 6 teams, 4 were in the East.
Did it affect the level of play? Of course it did.
Did it mean that the top teams had many "tomato can" games that inflated their record? Of course it did.
If you want to focus on who's biased, look in the mirror.

There was enough talent to add 4 teams so that's not even an issue. The real issue is the Canadian expansion and weaker Draft classes of the mid 90s.

But of course you keep avoiding the fact that yet another expansion team was added in the 00s with the horrid influx of prep-to-pro that overall brought in even weaker Draft classes than the 90s had. This notion that international talent made the 00s better is BS.

With that being said, I do feel that the 10s will bring much better basketball than the 00s.

"This notion that international talent made the 00s better is BS."
Sooo, Nash, Nowitzki, Ginobli, Gasol, Duncan, Turkoglu, Mutumbo didn't make an impact?

[Y2K]

Still using your "So what?" response I see. Brilliant.
The expansion we are discussing didn't occur over "a long period of time", it occurred from 88-95. 7 years.
Of those 6 teams, 4 were in the East.
Did it affect the level of play? Of course it did.
Did it mean that the top teams had many "tomato can" games that inflated their record? Of course it did.
If you want to focus on who's biased, look in the mirror.

There was enough talent to add 4 teams so that's not even an issue. The real issue is the Canadian expansion and weaker Draft classes of the mid 90s.

But of course you keep avoiding the fact that yet another expansion team was added in the 00s with the horrid influx of prep-to-pro that overall brought in even weaker Draft classes than the 90s had. This notion that international talent made the 00s better is BS.

With that being said, I do feel that the 10s will bring much better basketball than the 00s.

"This notion that international talent made the 00s better is BS."
Sooo, Nash, Nowitzki, Ginobli, Gasol, Duncan, Turkoglu, Mutumbo didn't make an impact?

That's only a very very very tiny sample.

[town bidness]

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.

hey i forgot about this nonsense.

"Believe what you want."

lol, belief has nothing to do with it, it's about what you can prove.

the conference that won less championships though having the same amount of championship teams with minutia in wins separating the conferences, is not evidence of superiority regardless of nostalgic ramblings.

how does this reads as sound reasoning is amazing, it's revisionism at it's most ugly.

you cant point to a single shred of evidence that lends credence to your half baked 'belief' and listing the talent of the conferences does nothing. keep dreaming.

[town bidness]

So Bidness is trying to say the WC in the 80's was equal to the EC? Good grief man. Your credibility takes hits on an almost daily basis...

The record of the losing team in the Conference Finals for the years of 79-80 through 88-89 are as follows:

West: 488-332 .595
East: 558-262 .680

There are three separate years where the losing team of the WCF during this period was at or below .500 ('81 KC, '84 PHX, '87 SEA). In 1981, BOTH teams were below .500 and the Western Conference representative in the Finals had a regular season record of 40-42 (Houston, which beat Kareem and Magic in Round 1).

There was never a losing team with more than 56 wins in the WCF and there was a sub-50 win team as the loser four times.

In the East there were 6 ECF losing teams with 57 or more wins and three of those teams had 60+ wins.

No honest person can say that the West was a good conference outside of the city of Los Angeles during the 80's. It was as weak or weaker than the East has been the past 10-15 years.

The Lakers were the only team from the west that could beat the top 3 teams from the east. But 5 times out of 8, they did so.

I do feel that while Boston only won 3, they were just as great as the Lakers were in that decade.

I agree with this. Boston wasn't able to make it to the Finals as often as L.A. because they had a much harder road to travel.

i'm sure that helps ease the pain but it's because boston was inferior.. not even the duncan spurs of the 80s. a step below them.

lol, those excuses are for feeble minded lebron fans.

[town bidness]

So Bidness is trying to say the WC in the 80's was equal to the EC? Good grief man. Your credibility takes hits on an almost daily basis...

The record of the losing team in the Conference Finals for the years of 79-80 through 88-89 are as follows:

West: 488-332 .595
East: 558-262 .680

There are three separate years where the losing team of the WCF during this period was at or below .500 ('81 KC, '84 PHX, '87 SEA). In 1981, BOTH teams were below .500 and the Western Conference representative in the Finals had a regular season record of 40-42 (Houston, which beat Kareem and Magic in Round 1).

There was never a losing team with more than 56 wins in the WCF and there was a sub-50 win team as the loser four times.

In the East there were 6 ECF losing teams with 57 or more wins and three of those teams had 60+ wins.

No honest person can say that the West was a good conference outside of the city of Los Angeles during the 80's. It was as weak or weaker than the East has been the past 10-15 years.

all of that yet the east still had only four of 10 rings during the decade with only bos and det winning anything.

the west was top heavy while the east had more parity within the conference and guess what? it basically balanced out, lol.

the west had the meaningful success and the teams of the east get to pretend the conference was better when in all substantive ways it was not. prior to the last 14 years you could have said such to a minor degree but not in such an intellectually dishonest manner.

the league was not lopsided in the 80s... the east in the last 14 years is what idiots pretend the west was in the 80s.

lol... what a waste.

[vcsgrizzfan]

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.

hey i forgot about this nonsense.

"Believe what you want."

lol, belief has nothing to do with it, it's about what you can prove.

the conference that won less championships though having the same amount of championship teams with minutia in wins separating the conferences, is not evidence of superiority regardless of nostalgic ramblings.

how does this reads as sound reasoning is amazing, it's revisionism at it's most ugly.

you cant point to a single shred of evidence that lends credence to your half baked 'belief' and listing the talent of the conferences does nothing. keep dreaming.

I'm not going to go over the whole damn thing again, but in essence, the Lakers had virtually no one to beat in the west in the 80s. The conference was the Lakers and a bunch of pretenders. The east had several teams that were extremely strong for meaningful periods of time in that decade, including the Celtics, the Sixers and the Pistons. Myself and others have been through that in enough detail and you just choose to ignore it.

[Shill Jackson]

when searching I came across this old thread.
Glorious.
LOL at how many posts have nothing to do with Jordan or today's EC.