@Moonshoes08
Your nostalgia for 90s basketball is clouding your logic. The numbers don't lie. Here's an ESPN Insider Analysis:
"But overall, in fact, scoring was much easier for most of the 1990s, including Jordan's heyday. (And it was even easier in the 1980s.) Not only was the game played faster, a clear sign that there was relatively little resistance as players went up and down the court and to the basket, but teams also scored a lot more per possession. For instance, in 1992-93, known for a rough-and-tumble series between the Knicks and the Bulls, scoring was at 108.0 points per 100 possessions. This year, it's down to 105.8, which is actually an increase from last season. Think about that -- when the team had the ball in the 1990s, it scored more than it does now.
That's despite the following: Offensive strategy has evolved in the mathematically correct direction, which is to shoot more 3s and space the floor better. Of course, that's in part because players are more afraid to enter the lane -- watch a Clippers game for the number of times Chris Paul shies away from going to the rim because he knows he'll get hit. He has admitted as much, despite being one of the toughest, most physical point guards we've ever seen. But defenses are so fast, physical and prepared that, even with much improved outside shooting in the game these days (the 3-point percentage across the league is 35.9, as opposed to 32.0 percent in Jordan's first championship season), scoring is down. In the 1990s, teams shot a much higher percentage from the field than they do now, and a higher percentage on 2-point baskets. If players were getting banged on every play, why was it so much easier for the skinnier players of that decade to score? Why was it so much easier then to get to the bucket and score on 2-point shots? And, if they were better shooters then, why is 3-point shooting better now? So, just to be clear: The case some people are making is that less effective defense was also more physical. Can that be?
This is where someone suggests that the heightened physical play is obvious if you merely watch those old games. I would respond that you indeed should go back and watch. What you'll find in those '90s "slugfests" might shock you. Yep, there are some hard fouls (just as there are today). But defensive communication is often weak; screens are dealt with poorly; and double-teams result in wide-open shots. For an example, witness Penny Hardaway knifing through the Bulls in the 1996 playoffs. Skinny Penny does it with undeniable skill, but he also gets to the rim with ridiculous ease. Keep in mind, these are the 72-win Bulls we're talking about, the greatest team to ever play -- the team with the No. 1 defense in the league that season. Just imagine how easy it was to score on the Celtics that year as they were giving up 107.0 points per game, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, with Big Country Reeves manning the middle. Weakside defense was, indeed, weak. Those Chicago Bulls teams were fantastic defenders. But they weren't especially physical. And neither was the era -- it was merely an era we say we like better, an era we increasingly mythologize the further we get from it. To extol the rugged virtues of the Jordan epoch often seems like a way to knock today's players, for whatever reasons. But it is analysis, or storytelling? Athletes get bigger, faster and stronger with each passing year. Defenses would still rather hit an opponent than cede a dunk. LeBron is complaining about getting clobbered because it's actually happening. David Lee bloodied Dwight Howard's mouth Monday with an elbow without getting called for it -- it was so ordinary it barely happened. This is what exists in the game today. Overall, modern basketball is almost certainly as physical, and probably a lot more physical, than it was in Jordan's day. Perhaps it's our collective memory that has gone a little soft and weak."
The key distinction for me is that there is definitely a difference between most talented/skilled and most accomplished. Would MJ dominate in today's era? Conversely, would LeBron and Durant drop 30 PER seasons in the 90s? Obviously, both are hypothetical but we're talking about 3 of the greatest talents the league has ever seen.
International play is significantly improved (see this year's championship roster), the skill set for big men has expanded, the level of athleticism at the point guard position is STAGGERING (can you imagine Russ or DRose in the 90s...and that era thought Kevin Johnson was explosive!). Just look at the players who DIDN'T make an All NBA Team this year: Russell, Duncan, Anthony Davis, Al Jefferson, etc.
Do we have a prime Shaq or Hakeem in this era? No one is saying that. But did the 90s have a Durant or LeBron or even a Westbrook? I don't see anyone saying that either.
Like someone mentioned earlier, legacies are overblown. Throw Peyton Manning on any team in the 80s and they're a title contender. He's that good. There are just certain athletes and players whose talents, as far as we know, transcend eras. The farther back you go, the trickier it gets (e.g. Bill Russell was skinnier than LeBron, could he really play C in this era?).
We like to mythologize the past, I get it...but let's just appreciate who came before, who plays now, and who's surely coming after. It's just the way life is. I'm just glad we have YouTube and HD video to document the current era, YouTubed some Nets Jason Kidd footage (ridiculous) but I'm done with the grainy stuff lol.
And a note for everyone saying 90s basketball > life, review some of those Finals rosters in the 90s or even better...pull up some game footage on YouTube (there's tons of full length games). Some of the team defense I saw would've made 2014 Wade proud.
