yeah i would have picked Salmons instead

What's your take on today's NBA talent in comparison to two decades ago?

<insert board was better 2 years ago joke here>

Yeah, I disagree and you've got bad "facts". There is a lesser percentage of blacks in the NBA today than there was 30 years ago. Maybe the whites back then were "dorkier", but that's pretty subjective. They wore smaller shorts and less expensive shoes.

He probably shouldn't have made one this year.

Really? Out of everything I said in this thread that is what you wan to argue about? The number of blacks and whites in the league?

Agreed.

I'd give the overall edge to the older generation. I love the NBA now, but there is a pretty big drop off between the stars and the rest. The guys that one would consider just good now would probably be role players back in the day. This doesn't include LeBron, Howard, Rose, etc...

who would you have picked instead? (seriously)

I actually thought Boozer got snubbed.

You seem to be under the impression that the game was played by an inferior species thirty or forty years ago. You're not the only person I've heard express such a viewpoint. Hell, danny bernstein does it all the time. It's just wrong though.

A guy like John Salmons isn't close to as good as a "dorky" white guy like Paul Westphal.

I think so.

The only real positive addition to the talent pool has been the influx of foreign players. However, you've had new teams added which diluted the talent pool. You've had the high school to NBA phenomenon which stunted the growth of many players who sat on benches or failed out of the league. You've seen a decrease in fundamentals in the high school and college levels which carries over to the NBA and helps explain the influx of foreign players who were taught better. You've seen the salary structure fill benches with over the hill players with guaranteed contracts.

Let me put it another way. The best player post-Jordan is a Jordan clone. The second best player post-Jordan is not the most physically gifted but incredibly fundamental and plays a style more reminiscent of a prior era in Tim Duncan. The best young player since Jordan is an athletic freak who can't find a way to beat a bunch of older players that kind of bridge the gap between today and 20 years ago.

Awesome.

90's and prior was a much more Physical NBA. Thats why Jordan said he can score 100 pts now.

Love Rose, but not sure he drives the lane as much if he played against Mahorn, Laimbeer, Salley and Rodman, they each would give him a tech foul and then a few other hard fouls and as good as D Rose is, he would start thinking twice.

Awesome.

Well now we are going to get back into the talent vs. athletic ability argument between the two eras. Just because players put up the same numbers then as a player now doesn't mean they were "as good".

I'm not going down that path.

JORR, why do you always have to take it to the race thing?

I didn't post that prior to 1990 the league was full of "dorky white guys". Why don't you pose your question to the guy who did?

WOW!

Awesome.

Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if guys like Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince get voted in. Those guys both have rings. Plus, we all know that any HoF is really the Hall of the Very Good.

Awesome.

I hate the basketball hall of fame...

I agree, and that aids to the point that there is much more talent to spread around that big time players might get voted off the team.

Awesome.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Rock N Roll HoF is the worst

If you put Kevin Martin in the 90s no one would care.

Awesome.

I could go back further on another site, but I look at this list and I have a hard time placing Kevin Martin anywhere higher than 31st.
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/scoring-per-game/sort/avgPoints/year/2000

Given the talent on that list, I don't see him being top ten in scoring like he is now. This was also the post-Jordan down NBA years. I'm sure if we looked at the top 40 scorers in 1993 that he's pushed out by superior players.