Weakest NBA championship team I can remember

[bigblueinsanity]

More opportunistic scorer? LOL. He averaged five points a game. He only made more than two field goals in ONE game. He was barely a blip on the radar as far as scoring goes for the first 5 games. What a joke of a statement.

Thompson only shot over 40% for one game of the finals. Then he provided nothing else in any facet of the game. Whereas Livingston only took 19 total shots all season, shooting 52.6%. Plus he averaged 3 rebounds and 2 assists in only 21 minutes of action. Klay averaged about the same, except in 38 minutes per game.

Livingston matched Klay in rebounds and assists while playing 17 fewer minutes per game. Then averaged 10 fewer points, while shooting over 10% better from the field. The only reason Klay scored more, was because he took alot more shots.

So yes, Livingston was much more efficient.

 

[Kiimohawk]

So these are all those blue hairs you all keep talking about that won't stand up at Kentucky games, huh?

 

[wildcatsboston1984]

Thompson only shot over 40% for one game of the finals. Then he provided nothing else in any facet of the game. Whereas Livingston only took 19 total shots all season, shooting 52.6%. Plus he averaged 3 rebounds and 2 assists in only 21 minutes of action. Klay averaged about the same, except in 38 minutes per game.

Livingston matched Klay in rebounds and assists while playing 17 fewer minutes per game. Then averaged 10 fewer points, while shooting over 10% better from the field. The only reason Klay scored more, was because he took alot more shots.

So yes, Livingston was much more efficient.

Great job completely ignoring what I said. You said he was a more opportunistic scorer. He rarely even considered shooting, that's not being an opportunistic scorer.

And no, Klay didn't score more because he played more. He just flat out scored more. Averaged 0.416 points per minute, Livingston averaged 0.248 points per minute. For Livingston to have matched the 15.8 Klay scored per game in the Finals, Livingston would have had to average 63.7 minutes a game. In fact, the 34 points Klay scored in game 2 in 46 minutes is four more points than Living scored in the entire Finals in 121 minutes. But Livingston was a more opportunistic scorer? LOLz.

And Klay shot over 50% in game two, 44% in game 4. Two is more than one.

But Klay provides nothing on defense? He finished 6th in the others receiving votes section for All-Defense and got three first-place votes, he received the third most votes for All-Defense for all GS players. Yes, he committed some dumb fouls, but to say he brought nothing in that facet of the game is patently ignorant. Shumpert shot 26% for the series (season average of 41%), JR Smith 31% for the series (42% season average). That didn't just happen by accident.

But yes, Livingston had more assists, and that's because he's the primary ball handler and point guard when he is in the game. Klay is rarely ever the primary ball handler nor is he ever a point guard, he's a pure scorer whose role on the team isn't to create assists. But once again, great job being clueless on the roles of the two players.

I notice that it's rather convenient that you chose to ignore stats that worked in Klay's favor. Like he averaged less turnovers per game, yet he played nearly double the minutes that Livingston did. Klay's turnover rate of just 1.01 turnovers per 48 minutes. That's even considerably low if his entire role was nothing but catch and shoot, much less one who is a high usage rate scorer.

And of course, you also ignore the fact that Klay stretches the defense because he is one of the best shooters in the league and he gets much more defensive attention than Livingston. You don't even really have to defend Livingston outside of the paint (other than the left short corner, as can be seen here http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/livinsh01/shooting/2015/) and if he's is beating you with scoring it's because your defense has completely failed to defend the paint.

For the series, Klay had a +/- per minute of 0.153, Livingston 0.132. Extrapolate that out to per 38.0 minutes (what Klay averaged for the series), Klay was a +5.80 and Livingston +5.02.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Great job completely ignoring what I said. You said he was a more opportunistic scorer. He rarely even considered shooting, that's not being an opportunistic scorer.

And no, Klay didn't score more because he played more. He just flat out scored more. Averaged 0.416 points per minute, Livingston averaged 0.248 points per minute. For Livingston to have matched the 15.8 Klay scored per game in the Finals, Livingston would have had to average 63.7 minutes a game. In fact, the 34 points Klay scored in game 2 in 46 minutes is four more points than Living scored in the entire Finals in 121 minutes. But Livingston was a more opportunistic scorer? LOLz.

And Klay shot over 50% in game two, 44% in game 4. Two is more than one.

But Klay provides nothing on defense? He finished 6th in the others receiving votes section for All-Defense and got three first-place votes, he received the third most votes for All-Defense for all GS players. Yes, he committed some dumb fouls, but to say he brought nothing in that facet of the game is patently ignorant. Shumpert shot 26% for the series (season average of 41%), JR Smith 31% for the series (42% season average). That didn't just happen by accident.

But yes, Livingston had more assists, and that's because he's the primary ball handler and point guard when he is in the game. Klay is rarely ever the primary ball handler nor is he ever a point guard, he's a pure scorer whose role on the team isn't to create assists. But once again, great job being clueless on the roles of the two players.

I notice that it's rather convenient that you chose to ignore stats that worked in Klay's favor. Like he averaged less turnovers per game, yet he played nearly double the minutes that Livingston did. Klay's turnover rate of just 1.01 turnovers per 48 minutes. That's even considerably low if his entire role was nothing but catch and shoot, much less one who is a high usage rate scorer.

And of course, you also ignore the fact that Klay stretches the defense because he is one of the best shooters in the league and he gets much more defensive attention than Livingston. You don't even really have to defend Livingston outside of the paint (other than the left short corner, as can be seen here http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/livinsh01/shooting/2015/) and if he's is beating you with scoring it's because your defense has completely failed to defend the paint.

For the series, Klay had a +/- per minute of 0.153, Livingston 0.132. Extrapolate that out to per 38.0 minutes (what Klay averaged for the series), Klay was a +5.80 and Livingston +5.02.

Congrats on him scoring at nearly 2x the rate, when compared to a player who only averaged about 3 shots per game.

Stats I looked at had him at 40% for that game. Maybe they were wrong. I dont know.

What does him being voted all defense have to do with his performance IN THE FINALS? Nothing. Of course JR and Shump shot low percentages. They always do. Theyre terrible, bulk shooters.

I love Klay. I think hes a great player. He just didnt have a good series. But alot of GS perimeter players picked up the slack. Thats all. Whys that so hard to admit?

 

[kyhillbilly1]

OP is trolling. Curry may be the best player in the league, and they were the best team all year long.

Um, No. Lebron is the best player in the world.

 

[.S&C.]

So these are all those blue hairs you all keep talking about that won't stand up at Kentucky games, huh?

6 - 22

Is that embarrassing? Honest question. wait no let me ask it another way.

What's more embarrassing.
1. Being UK's bitch. ?6-22
2. Bragging on 105 year old players wearing knee pads while only sporting 3 titles.
3. Claiming a fake championship because you don't have any?

As a UKUjr. fan, which one is worse? I think imitating UK and being owned by them would be the hardest part. Although, uconn having more championships than Kansas the "blue blood" has got to sting

 

[Kiimohawk]

6 - 22

Is that embarrassing? Honest question. wait no let me ask it another way.

What's more embarrassing.
1. Having to call UK daddy?6-22
2. Bragging on 105 year old players wearing knee pads while only sporting 3 titles.
3. Claiming a fake championship because you don't have any?

As a UKUjr. fan, which one is worse? I think imitating UK and being owned by them would be the hardest part. Although, uconn having nore championships than Kansas "blue blood" has got to sting

Uh responding to a post that has nothing to do with Kansas with this is pretty dumb.

 

[.S&C.]

Well, I still think being uk's bitch is the worst part. If we reversed those roles, I'd never hang out on any Kansas board.

I just asked an honest question. Why can't you answer it? I'm curious, of those 3, which one is the worst one to you. As a Kansas fan? Add

Make that four choices.

1. Being uk's bitch
2. Sporting Knee pad wearing farm boys from 1822, claiming all time greatness, 2 titles until 2008, 3 in last 1,000 years.
3. Claiming fake, made up titles due to lack of hardware.
4. Uconn has more success in 20 years than you do in 500.

seriously, if you could ditch one, which one would you toss and why?

 

[LineSkiCat]

EAD Kiimo.

 

[Kiimohawk]

Ah. It's the idiots again. Moving on.

 

[LineSkiCat]

Good work .SC.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Since the OP apparently was/is serious I'll say that why I do not think they are the worst, they are definitely not one of the best team of all time despite the record of 83 total wins.

I'd probably say they are better than 2011 Dallas, maybe 2004 Detroit, but yeah hard to rank them ahead of any of the Spurs/Laker title teams, or Miami title teams, although I think GS would give many a battle and take some to 6-7 games. Going back to the 90s....yeah, not seeing it with Spurs, Bulls and Rockets. 80s is a lot of the same not seeing it. So the more I think about it they could be argued to be one of the worst, based on pure talent and such. Idk, it is so subjective.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Until the OP actually makes some kind of substantiated claim, based on anything more than cliches, biased memory and loose anecdotal evidence, there's no way he's being serious. Stop taking the bait.

 

[Kiimohawk]

You may not care to get a positive reinforcement post from me jason but man you are always on point. The Warriors remind me a lot of the Spurs, they just share it with their guards instead of their bigs.

 

[twocoach]

Honest question. How old are you? Not a put down at all, but someone who grew up watching the NBA in the 80's and 90's could not hold this opinion in my mind. this product is hard to watch.

And the slugfests involving Boston, the Lakers, Pistons, Knicks etc... was BETTER? Most of the NBA playoffs of the 80's & 90's disintegrated into WWE wrestling matches. It's nice to see good players actually be able to PLAY without getting body slammed to the floor for having the nerve to drive to the rim. There's good and bad to every era but it is nice to see the physical BS gone. Imagine how much longer Bird could have played if he wasn't beaten half to death in every playoff game against the Pistons and Lakers.

 

[twocoach]

That werthers original comment was great. How about learning how to keep skid marks out of your underwear before you address the adults.

Reggie Miller was amazing. That put down kind of shows me where you are at.

Amazing? Tell me how he's any different than Klay Thompson besides the trash talking?

 

[GOING FOR #9]

seriously? Golden State just completed one of the best seasons in NBA history. They were dominant from start to finish and played BEAUTIFUL basketball. Weak? No. Watch more basketball. Learn.

Yes weakest...the competition in the NBA is far weaker this year than years past due to injuries and yes all the guys who leave early and become worthless. Shawn Livingston as the 2nd pick and a role player helps prove the point. It's taking guys 4-5 years now to become relevant players because they have to mature and grow. College basketball and the NBA were far better and higher quality when players actually stayed in college, matured and were ready for the rigorous schedule. Now you have guys like Durant and others who have been beaten up by playing the demanding schedule for more years burning out at a younger age. Yeah GS was great this year but that is a product of a league that is far inferior to where it has been historically. I have heard 2 teams mentioned in 30 years there seems to be consensus that GS would compete with. Come on some of you need to listen to yourselves. Pistons and mavericks...if these are the only two teams that GS could compete with historically then there you go...very weak champ.

 

[BtBlueBlood]

OP is trolling. Curry may be the best player in the league, and they were the best team all year long.

Curry "may" be the best PG in the league but anyone who doesn't think Lebron is the best player in the league (despite lack of more titles) is just plain hating. I remeber doing the same thing in the 90's, me and my buddy are die hard Knicks fans and we absolutely HATED Jordan. But now looking back I respect him for the great player he was and i'm lucky to have gotten to watch that era of basketball. There is no way even Jordan if in his prime today could have led the 2 Cavs teams Lebron took to the Finals there.
Fact is if Lebron was on GS in that series and Curry was on the Cavs, GS would have swept the Cavs. Hell the Cavs likely wouldn't have even been in the Finals. There isn't another player in the league that could have taken the Cavs that far. Curry is very good but he wouldn't have had a chance at MVP in the league in the 90's had he played then. The league is watered down but I do think in years to come it will come around again. Maybe not 80's-early 2000's good but the youth that is good will get better and the ones that aren't will be gone.
All in all GS was the best team this year and despite my belief that a healthy Cavs would win that series, the reality is injuries happen and the Cavs had a 6 man rotation after injuries and it wasn't enough to deal with GS's 8-9 man rotation of pretty solid role players off the bench.
As a Knicks fan I would take almost any player from either team in a heartbeat over ball hog Melo.

And a HUGE LOL to the person saying Varejao was a top center. The same Cavs team Lebron took to the Finals, after he left barely won a game with Varejao as their best player. His injury was probably the only good injury the Cavs had this year.

 

[BtBlueBlood]

Warriors deserve respect for the season they had but fact is the league is watered down.
There would be a list a mile long of players from the late 80's to early 2000's that would dominate in todays league. There is only a handful of players in todays league that would be all-stars in the former era but there is a large amount that would make great role players off the bench.
I will say I was just glad despite who won that there was going to be a champion other then the Spurs or Lakers. I couldn't imagine watching the NBA in the Celtics era if you weren't a Celtics or Lakers fan, watching the same 2 teams win year after year. The one good thing about the league being "watered down" is it does seem more balanced. What I mean is teams that have been bad a long time are now competing. Just need my Knicks to final join those teams....lol.
I don't care how watered down it is, if the Knicks won next year I would take it in a heart beat as i'm sure GS fans are just as excited and don't care what others think.

 

[GonzoCat90]

. It's taking guys 4-5 years now to become relevant players because they have to mature and grow. College basketball and the NBA were far better and higher quality when players actually stayed in college, matured and were ready for the rigorous schedule. Now you have guys like Durant and others who have been beaten up by playing the demanding schedule for more years burning out at a younger age. champ.

Okay, apparently you're really serious.

Which current great players took 4-5 years to become great?

And if you're going to use Durant, who has apparently "burned out" at a young age, what about guys like Bird or Walton who stayed in school? It's mindbogglingly inaccurate to somehow argue that playing more basketball before you get to the NBA somehow increases your longevity.

 

[UK90]

And a HUGE LOL to the person saying Varejao was a top center. The same Cavs team Lebron took to the Finals, after he left barely won a game with Varejao as their best player.

What the hell are you talking about? Varejao missed almost all of that next season after Lebron left with injury, and in fact, missed most of the next three seasons with injury. Gee, what a shock that a player OUT WITH INJURY didn't do more to help that team win, really great point you made there, buddy . And, fwiw, Varejao was indeed once a damn good player back when he was young and healthy, but unfortunately for him, his body seemed to break down right after 2010 and in the years since he's been locked in the "nearly always injured" mode.

That whole "look how bad the Cavs did the year after Lebron left" line of argument is just dumb and absurdly flawed.. It is essentially meaningless because of how radically different (and FAR worse) the Cavs roster was that next year, not even remotely close to the same supporting cast Lebron played with the year before, a fact those like you who toss out that lame argument seem to be utterly ignorant of.

The Cavs did not just lose Lebron, instead they gutted their roster and went into tank mode right after his announcement, also getting rid of Mo Williams, Shaq, Illgauskas, Delonte West, etc. (plus Varejao missed nearly the entire next season with injury). Given all those losses, it's hardly a surprise how bad they were. Hell, that cast would've been far worse than the year before even if Lebron had stayed.

 

[UK90]

The league is watered down but I do think in years to come it will come around again. Maybe not 80's-early 2000's good but the youth that is good will get better and the ones that aren't will be gone.

This is laughable nonsense. Today's players are on average better than they were in "the 80s-early 2000s".or any other prior era in the game's history. Today's guys are on average more athletic, more skilled, handle the ball better, and shoot better (as the vast improvement in 3 percentages demonstrate) than ever before. Play has not been "watered down" anywhere other than your imagination

 

[GOING FOR #9]

Okay, apparently you're really serious.

Which current great players took 4-5 years to become great?

And if you're going to use Durant, who has apparently "burned out" at a young age, what about guys like Bird or Walton who stayed in school? It's mindbogglingly inaccurate to somehow argue that playing more basketball before you get to the NBA somehow increases your longevity.

Staying in school gives a player half the games they play in the NBA against half the competiton. No doubt those years are valuable in the over all development of the player. Leaving before physically ready leads to burnout and injury sooner plain and simple. We now have a culture where everyone thinks they are a Jordan or Magic with their overall abilities including longevity leaving well before they are ready. Many justify it due to the money but it is hurting the overall basketball product NBA and college.


As for your question, you want a list of guys who have been in the league a relatively short time who left very early from college, who this year suffered significant injury this season and past seasons? rose? Durant? Love? List goes on and on. Where are the dominant players today who have the stamina to lift a team to dynasty status? There aren't many if 1 maybe in this current era

 

[twocoach]

Warriors deserve respect for the season they had but fact is the league is watered down.
There would be a list a mile long of players from the late 80's to early 2000's that would dominate in todays league. There is only a handful of players in todays league that would be all-stars in the former era but there is a large amount that would make great role players off the bench.
I will say I was just glad despite who won that there was going to be a champion other then the Spurs or Lakers. I couldn't imagine watching the NBA in the Celtics era if you weren't a Celtics or Lakers fan, watching the same 2 teams win year after year. The one good thing about the league being "watered down" is it does seem more balanced. What I mean is teams that have been bad a long time are now competing. Just need my Knicks to final join those teams....lol.
I don't care how watered down it is, if the Knicks won next year I would take it in a heart beat as i'm sure GS fans are just as excited and don't care what others think.

You are aware that it was the huge pile of NBA expansion teams in the late 80s/early 90s that led to the league being watered down, right?

 

[twocoach]

Staying in school gives a player half the games they play in the NBA against half the competiton. No doubt those years are valuable in the over all development of the player. Leaving before physically ready leads to burnout and injury sooner plain and simple. We now have a culture where everyone thinks they are a Jordan or Magic with their overall abilities including longevity leaving well before they are ready. Many justify it due to the money but it is hurting the overall basketball product NBA and college.


As for your question, you want a list of guys who have been in the league a relatively short time who left very early from college, who this year suffered significant injury this season and past seasons? rose? Durant? Love? List goes on and on. Where are the dominant players today who have the stamina to lift a team to dynasty status? There aren't many if 1 maybe in this current era

So let me get this straight, you are claiming that players develop MORE in a college season where they play 30-40 games a year, practice against players who are worse than they are for the most part and are limited to the number of hours they can practice each week over the NBA where they can play 80-100 games a season, practice against players BETTER than them for the most part and have an unlimited amount of practice time available to them. Um.....

Look, I am a huge college basketball fan and I would love it if guys would stick around in the college game longer but that's just silly. I will give you the point that they are putting a lot of wear and tear on bodies that do not seem to be physically ready to handle that type of workload yet. Too many of these young guys are getting hurt their first two years because they simply are not strong enough yet.

 

[twocoach]

Sure, but back then people weren't searching for players like Paxson just to try and add to their watered down product. It's not the same comparison.

Sweet mercy you're dumb. Do you not HAVE access to google.com? Roll down the list on this link and you will laugh at how silly your statement is. It's a who's-who of watered down NBA players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994_transactions.html

The list of bush league players signed as free agents after the 1993 season is mind boggling and includes the guy that would replace Paxson in Chicago as the 3 point expert for a Jordan-led Finals run, Mr. Steve Kerr.

 

[RondoBaller21]

Curry is the league MVP and champion, which means he is the best player in the league, for now. Lebron may win that title back, but MVP means he is best player in the league, and he proved it with a championship this year. Both LeBron and Curry don't have much to work with in terms of rosters, so if you'd switch Curry and LeBron, you'd get the same outcome.

 

[UK90]

Sweet mercy you're dumb. Do you not HAVE access to google.com? Roll down the list on this link and you will laugh at how silly your statement is. It's a who's-who of watered down NBA players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994_transactions.html

.

Ahh, yes, the "glory days" era of Scott Meents, Chris Corchiani, Bob McCann, Tom Tolbert, Robert Werdann, Jim Farmer,Tim Kempton, Walter Bond, Chuck Nevitt, Keith Tower, etc. Sure wasn't any "watered down" crap littering NBA rosters back in them good ole 80s and 90s, right?

I mean, seriously, we've got people who actually believe today's NBA talent level is worse than the era when friggin Rob Lock once made a roster? Yeesh, I worry about some of you guys..

 

[Hjack]

And how many times did we hear that our guys could beat some NBA teams - - at least until Wisconsin.

 

[Hoskins91]

Curry is the league MVP and champion, which means he is the best player in the league, for now. Lebron may win that title back, but MVP means he is best player in the league, and he proved it with a championship this year. Both LeBron and Curry don't have much to work with in terms of rosters, so if you'd switch Curry and LeBron, you'd get the same outcome.

No to all of this. Curry won the MVP because he was the best player on the most relevant team and won the championship because they had the best all around roster at the end of the year. You put LeBron on the Warriors, they become a historical juggernaut that's in position to dominate the league for the near future. Curry wouldn't have won with what remained of Cleveland's team.

 

[fla.cat]

The NBA, lol. Complete crap league. How anyone can defend the product right now is just incredible. I watched 2 finals games, and that was enough. Lol at anyone using GS wins this year to claim greatness. They were the best scrub team in a scrub league. Yay.[/QUOT
I totally agree...I tried to watch it and thought I was watching WWF wrassling. It was boring, the physicality of it is just mind boggling in the amount of hacking, holding, elbowing, grabbing, palming, walking etc.
I just gave up on it. It is not a product that has any appeal to me, even as a Bball lover.

 

[wildcatsboston1984]

Curry is the league MVP and champion, which means he is the best player in the league, for now. Lebron may win that title back, but MVP means he is best player in the league, and he proved it with a championship this year. Both LeBron and Curry don't have much to work with in terms of rosters, so if you'd switch Curry and LeBron, you'd get the same outcome.

No, MVP means the player had the perceived best season. YOu honestly think Kobe was only the best player in the game for one season? Or that Bob McAdoo and Dave Cowens were better players than Kareem? Or that Charles Barkley was better than Jordan?

And Curry didn;t have much to work with on his roster? LOLz. Klay Thompson was third-team All-NBA and an All-Star. Draymond Green was first-team all-defense.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

No to all of this. Curry won the MVP because he was the best player on the most relevant team and won the championship because they had the best all around roster at the end of the year. You put LeBron on the Warriors, they become a historical juggernaut that's in position to dominate the league for the near future. Curry wouldn't have won with what remained of Cleveland's team.

Yeah, the Warriors with Lebron sweep Curry and the hapless Cavs. I'm not even sure the Cavs beat Chicago with Curry instead of Lebron (just IMO). This Warrior team winning 67 with Curry is great, but they would have been better in the playoffs with Lebron...and may have won 70+ in the regular season with him. I'm interested to see if this Warriors team can stay together, keep its roster intact, but it may not matter if certain other WC teams get some key additions this coming season. I think LA or San Antionio would have scared G THIS post-season.

 

[UKDUNK]

Delly started multiple games in the NBA Finals....and was considered a key player. The Finals MVP is like 50 years old. The only guy who consistently posted up effectively in the Finals was a 6'8 small forward. Talent in the league is way down.

 

[.S&C.]

Sweet mercy you're dumb. Do you not HAVE access to google.com? Roll down the list on this link and you will laugh at how silly your statement is. It's a who's-who of watered down NBA players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994_transactions.html

The list of bush league players signed as free agents after the 1993 season is mind boggling and includes the guy that would replace Paxson in Chicago as the 3 point expert for a Jordan-led Finals run, Mr. Steve Kerr.

What the hell is your point? That list is meaningless. Do you now how many scrub ass players I could throw up right now? I mean, the list would be endless. The league is a freakin who's who of, well, who the hell is who? Most SPORTS FANS cannot even give you a decent rundown on the league today. The product sucks compared to what people have been accustomed to.

I believe something that a majority on the matter believe. The league is not as good as it was in the 80's and 90's. As a matter of fact, the only people that usually believe it is, are YOUNG PEOPLE who have never really watched or looked at just how great the era was. They just know what they've lived through and that's typically a few sunrises.

Btw dipshit....Good luck on catching Uconn and keeping the University of Florida off of your titles total. Maybe you can get that big 7th win against UK sometime in this 100 years.

 

[fatguy87]

The talent in the league is way down. I base this not on some sort of measurement but rather my nostalgia for Michael Jordan.

 

[.S&C.]

The talent in the league is way down. I base this not on some sort of measurement but rather my nostalgia for Michael Jordan.

I actually like the other side to that.

Talent is as good as it ever was, because it has to be even. There's no way one era could be better than the other. It's just nuts to suggest an era like the 80's and 90's was the best.

sure.

 

[mj2k10]

What the hell is your point? That list is meaningless. Do you now how many scrub ass players I could throw up right now? I mean, the list would be endless. The league is a freakin who's who of, well, who the hell is who? Most SPORTS FANS cannot even give you a decent rundown on the league today. The product sucks compared to what people have been accustomed to.

I believe something that a majority on the matter believe. The league is not as good as it was in the 80's and 90's. As a matter of fact, the only people that usually believe it is, are YOUNG PEOPLE who have never really watched or looked at just how great the era was. They just know what they've lived through and that's typically a few sunrises.

Complete idiocy. Like a Mt Everest of stupidity.

Explain why players would somehow get worse over time. Actually, forget it. You can't, because you're you, and you and logic don't coexist well enough to make anything you're likely to say even half rational.

 

[UKcats1988]

I think the NBA was more top heavy with great players in the mid 80's and 90's than today but the quality of play and the overall skill of players today is greater along with the overall depth of talented players. If you listed the top 5 players from 1993 it would be what Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, David Robinson, Karl Malone? Yea that's greater than the top 5 currently but I think players 15-50 or whatever today are better.

Here's the top players from 1993 using PER.

1. Michael Jordan* ▪ CHI 29.7
2. Hakeem Olajuwon* ▪ HOU 27.3
3. Karl Malone* ▪ UTA 26.2
4. Charles Barkley* ▪ PHO 25.9
5. Dominique Wilkins* ▪ ATL 24.3
6. David Robinson* ▪ SAS 24.2
7. Shaquille O'Neal ▪ ORL 22.9
8. Mark Price ▪ CLE 22.1
9. Brad Daugherty ▪ CLE 22.0
10. John Stockton* ▪ UTA 21.3
11. Derrick Coleman ▪ NJN 21.2
12. Cedric Ceballos ▪ PHO 21.0
13. Alonzo Mourning* ▪ CHH 20.8
14. Patrick Ewing* ▪ NYK 20.8
15. Clyde Drexler* ▪ POR 20.7
16. Shawn Kemp ▪ SEA 20.4
17. Larry Nance ▪ CLE 19.8
18. Tim Hardaway ▪ GSW 19.7
19. Danny Manning ▪ LAC 19.6
20. Reggie Miller* ▪ IND 19.4

Now here's 2014-15(Durant had 27.6 PER but didn't play enough to qualify)

1. Anthony Davis ▪ NOP 30.8
2. Russell Westbrook ▪ OKC 29.1
3. Stephen Curry ▪ GSW 28.0
4. James Harden ▪ HOU 26.7
5. Chris Paul ▪ LAC 26.0
6. LeBron James ▪ CLE 25.9
7. DeMarcus Cousins ▪ SAC 25.2
8. Blake Griffin ▪ LAC 22.8
9. LaMarcus Aldridge ▪ POR 22.8
10. Brook Lopez ▪ BRK 22.7
11. Pau Gasol ▪ CHI 22.7
12. Tim Duncan ▪ SAS 22.6
13. Kawhi Leonard ▪ SAS 22.0
14. Derrick Favors ▪ UTA 21.8
15. Marc Gasol ▪ MEM 21.7
16. Rudy Gobert ▪ UTA 21.6
17. Nikola Vucevic ▪ ORL 21.5
18. Kyrie Irving ▪ CLE 21.5
19. Andre Drummond ▪ DET 21.4
20. Dwyane Wade ▪ MIA 21.4

 

[.S&C.]

Complete idiocy. Like a Mt Everest of stupidity.

Explain why players would somehow get worse over time. Actually, forget it. You can't, because you're you, and you and logic don't coexist well enough to make anything you're likely to say even half rational.

Again, please explain to me how the 80's and 90's generation couldn't be a better product, you being the board expert on EVERYTHING and all. Show me that logic tough guy.

Actually, just forget it, because you can't . You're you, and you and logic only exist in your own little version of it.

With so many believing the product is not as good, i'll leave you to your "own" version of the word logic.