90s vs 00s, which was the best decade?

[Micku]

With talent and teams.

Lets compare the star talent between the decade:

00s
PG: Jason Kidd (prime/peak), Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, Chris Paul, Deron Williams
SG: Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Vince Carter
SF: LeBron James, Paul Pierce, T-Mac, Carmelo Anthony
PF: Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett (prime), Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol
C: Shaq (prime/peak), Dwight Howard, Ben Wallace, Yao Ming, Dikembe Mutombo

(those of you who consider Tim Duncan a center could just place him there. It makes the C position look better)

90s

PG: John Stockton, Gary Payton, Penny Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Mark Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Jason Kidd
SG: Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Mitch Richmond
SF: Scottie Pippen, Grant Hill (prime), Dominique Wilkins, Chris Mullin
PF: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Larry Johnson, Shawn Kemp, Kevin Garnett
C: Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo

Which decade do you think had the best star talent in each position?

IMO:

Point guards: I would probably give the edge out to the 90s due to prime John Stockton, Gary Payton and Kevin Johnson were all great. Jason Kidd was stellar, even though he wasn't in his prime and Penny was great too.

Shooting guards: Even though the 90s had Michael Jordan, the rest just lack the star talent that 00s had. And there were a lot of "Michael Jordan" like in the 00s.

Small Forward: It's close to me. It's probably the same deal with the SG position. Even though LeBron James is the best, the rest of the SFs in the 90s might've been better by a hair in comparison to the 00s.

Power Forwards: Probably the 00s. While Karl Malone, Barkley, and Rodman were great, I think the rest of the 00s cast were better than the power forwards in the 90s. Plus, if you add Duncan into the mix, then I think the PF was more stacked in the 00s.

Center: 90s

-----

What about the teams?

90s



1990 Pistons: The bad boys Pistons. This team may be one of the top ten teams.

The Bulls: They were great. They have arguments for the best team of all time. Top ten team, and you just have to pick and choose which one you like better.

91 Lakers
92 Blazzers
92-94 Knicks
93 Suns
95 Rockets
96 Magic
96 Sonics
97-98 Jazz

91 Lakers were underrated to me. Yeah, they were getting old, but they still had force and almost no weakness in their positions. 93 Suns, 92-93 Knicks, 97-98 Jazz are candidates for the best team to never win a title. And the 95 Rockets had the Clyde Drexler and Hakeem combo, and went into the playoffs with a mediocre record to win it all.

But there's a lot of best teams to never win a title because most of the 90s the Bulls beat out their competition and left no room for debate.


00s

Lakers 00-02
00 Blazzers
00 Pacers
02 Kings
03, 05, 07 Spurs
04, 05 Pistons
05, 06, Heat
07 Spurs
08 Celtics
09 Lakers

The 00s teams have more weakness than the 90s teams, which were a little more stacked and played more team ball imo, but there were teams in the 00s that were great all around. The Pistons, the Spurs, the early Lakers team, and the Kings 02. The Kings 02 like the teams of the 90s, might be a candidate of the best team to never win a title.

But you have the 01 Lakers, Pistons, the 08 Celtics, and the one of the Spurs teams.

Which decade do you think had the better talent and teams?

[Legends66NBA7]

Got to go with the 90's.

Better teams, better overall talents.

Plus a big edge to the big men overall.

[Micku]

I actually think that the perimeter talent is pretty close. I also think that the 00s of the power forward position had more talent with them. While the center position just destroys the 00s.

The 90s probably had better defenders IMO. Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, Payton, Hakeem, Mutombo, Mourning, Dumar and David Robinson are all pretty great defensively.

Hakeem, Pippen, Rodman, Payton and Jordan being some of the best defenders of all time.

The teams were a bit better IMO, with competition from the East and the West. Although, you always hear that the league was starting to water down in the late 90s.

[305Baller]

I'd have to say that the game has changed so much that it is difficult to gauge but the 90's players have the edge of going against the best era, the 80's, coming up.

[OldSchoolBBall]

'90-'94 > '95-'98 >= '08-'11 > '99-'07.

[305Baller]

Also, both the 90's and 00's are better than the 70's and early 80's.

[DirtySanchez]

Also, both the 90's and 00's are better than the 70's and early 80's.

Smoking crack young one.

I have been watching since the 80's.....

80's by far the best era in the NBA.

And I would take 00's over the 90's in a heartbeat.

[reppy]

Remember the early 00's with all the "me-first" ball? Guys dribbling out the shot clock for 20 seconds and then jacking up a contested shot or throwing up a wild, out of control lay up?

I'm so glad the NBA has improved in that regard. I think zone defense was put into place to put an end to all of that.

And1 was fun . . when it was on the streets. I never wanted to see it in the NBA.

So, having said all that . . I prefer 90s basketball. As a fan of the Blazers, neither era was particularly kind to my team. But I still prefer the 90s.

[305Baller]

Smoking crack young one.

I have been watching since the 80's.....

80's by far the best era in the NBA.

And I would take 00's over the 90's in a heartbeat.

depends. 83 sixers are not better than 90's bulls.

[JohnnySic]

2 things:

1 - You forgot Chris Webber for the 90's, as people always do for some reason

2 - 80's was better than both

[blacknapalm]

2 things:

1 - You forgot Chris Webber for the 90's, as people always do for some reason

2 - 80's was better than both

bang bang, you dead :cheers:

'you've been shown over and over, don't you know?'

[Smoke117]

90's obviously. The beginning of the 00 decade was incredibly weak as it was a transitional period. The east was just pathetic in the first half of that decade. Since then we've come into the "soft ball" era fro 05-06 and on where every offensive player has it easier than ANY 90s player ever did. The 90s was easily the better decade.

[NJW1247]

Which one has Michael Jordan? Yeah I'll take that one.

[The Iron Fist]

Most of the kids saying 90s, were still babies or not even born yet.

How would they know the decade was better when they didn't even watch it?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

'89-94 was the best five year stretch of bball I ever saw


Most of the kids saying 90s, were still babies or not even born yet.

How would they know the decade was better when they didn't even watch it?

So mad :oldlol:

[Haymaker]

90's and it's not even close.

[NugzHeat3]

1990-1995 and 1997 was better than anything in the 00s.

I'll take the late 00s over 1996, 1998 and 1999. 1996 was incredibly lame becasue the Bulls running everyone over was extremely tiring; in retrospect, they had no real threat to be honest. As someone who prefers parity, I didn't quite like that.

But that's not the only thing. The playoffs were absolute trash, there wasn't a single competitive series except for the Jazz vs Sonics WCF. Top to bottom, that's one of the worst playoffs I've seen. And I'll take this time to say Utah was better than Seattle. Seattle just got a break with Stockton being brutally injured (elbow and hamstring) which was a rare occurence and they took advantage of that by focusing on the wounded animal (threw traps at him for all angles). Stockton was putting up Rafer Alston-type numbers in that series for the first five games or so. I'd say Utah wins with a healthy Stockton, hell they may have won as it is if Malone didn't let the crowd get to him at the FT line in game seven.

1997 was a little better because of a great rookie class and especially because the playoffs were a lot better, more competitive, fierce rivalries and great battles (NYK vs MIA, ORL vs MIA, CHI vs UTA, UTA vs HOU, HOU vs SEA, DET vs ATL, SEA vs PHO, LAL vs UTA). I see 1997 as the last hurrah of the 90s. 1997 was actually better than anything today.

1998 was lame and the type of basketball played was garbage. Someone earlier in the thread nailed it (ISO ball). Its actually amazing that the 1998 Jazz made the finals. That team doesn't make the finals in 1997. They don't make the finals in any of the prior years. Stockton was a shell of his former self after the microfracture. They just got by because they actually played like a team, were well coached and executed their game plan to perfection. There's a reason an 8th seeded vet , banged up squad like Houston gave them more trouble than the uber-talented Lakers that got swept. There were a lot of dumb players in the L at the time. The only good thing that year was IND vs CHI. Pacers were the second best team that year. Extremely well rounded and deep.

1999 was trash, all things considered. No need to even expand.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

1990-1995 and 1997 was better than anything in the 00s.

I'll take the late 00s over 1996, 1998 and 1999. 1996 was incredibly lame becasue the Bulls running everyone over was extremely tiring; in retrospect, they had no real threat to be honest. As someone who prefers parity, I didn't quite like that.

But that's not the only thing. The playoffs were absolute trash, there wasn't a single competitive series except for the Jazz vs Sonics WCF. Top to bottom, that's one of the worst playoffs I've seen. And I'll take this time to say Utah was better than Seattle. Seattle just got a break with Stockton being brutally injured (elbow and hamstring) which was a rare occurence and they took advantage of that by focusing on the wounded animal (threw traps at him for all angles). Stockton was putting up Rafer Alston-type numbers in that series for the first five games or so. I'd say Utah wins with a healthy Stockton, hell they may have won as it is if Malone didn't let the crowd get to him at the FT line in game seven.

1997 was a little better because of a great rookie class and especially because the playoffs were a lot better, more competitive, fierce rivalries and great battles (NYK vs MIA, ORL vs MIA, CHI vs UTA, UTA vs HOU, HOU vs SEA, DET vs ATL, SEA vs PHO, LAL vs UTA). I see 1997 as the last hurrah of the 90s. 1997 was actually better than anything today.

1998 was lame and the type of basketball played was garbage. Someone earlier in the thread nailed it (ISO ball). Its actually amazing that the 1998 Jazz made the finals. That team doesn't make the finals in 1997. They don't make the finals in any of the prior years. Stockton was a shell of his former self after the microfracture. They just got by because they actually played like a team, were well coach and executed their game plan to perfection. There's a reason an 8th seed bet squad like Houston gave them more trouble than the uber-talented Lakers that got swept. There were a lot of dumb players in the L at the time. The only good thing that year was IND vs CHI. Pacers were the second best team that year. Extremely well rounded and deep.

1999 was trash, all things considered. No need to even expand.

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true. :oldlol:

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

[305Baller]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true. :oldlol:

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

see my "Pippen and Jordan stole from each other" thread.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Um... the decade that had prime Michael Jordan winning championships.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Which one has Michael Jordan? Yeah I'll take that one.

:cheers:

[Smoke117]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true. :oldlol:

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

Frankly the only reason they even went to 6 games with the Sonics was because of how beat up Pippen was and how he couldn't do anything off the dribble because of his ankle and knee.

[NugzHeat3]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true. :oldlol:

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?
Thanks.

That is all true BTW about how dominant Jordan and Pippen were that year. But its just it got boring and redundant after awhile.

Certainly, a Bulls' fan perspective would be different but as a NBA fan first, I hated how far above they were from the rest of the league. Given your reasoning (Jordan answering the critics), I can see why you liked that year though. I remember it got to a point where I just watched them to see who'd beat them. But a lot of their games followed the same pattern, the it would be somewhat close around the half but they'd break it lose in the 3rd after making adjustments.

1990-1995 was good because for one, the talent pool was better at the time as opposed to the 00s or late 1990s. Those mid 80s draftees really peaked around that stretch plus the playoffs (intensity, competitivne match ups) were great for the most part. There was also a good balance between offense and defense as opposed to the slow paced, ugly defensive games of the late 90s or the uptempo, offensive-minded games of the 80s. I would say it was also more team-oriented and less egomaniacs running around. That time in the mid 90s that saw the players' salaries boom because of the massive increase in revenue is also a reason I think the game was focusing more on the individual at the time. That Juwan Howard contract in Miami (thank God didn't happen) that was terminated is a perfect example.

Those 1989-1994 ish draftees that didn't quite pan out (though there were guys like Shaq, C-Webb, Kidd ect that did) and the effect of that as well as the effect of Toronto and Vancouver gaining franchises hurt the league in the late 90s, imo. But till about 1995 or so, those dominant 80s stars carried the league well.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Thanks.

That is all true BTW about how dominant Jordan and Pippen were that year. But its just it got boring and redundant after awhile.

Certainly, a Bulls' fan perspective would be different but as a NBA fan first, I hated how far above they were from the rest of the league. Given your reasoning (Jordan answering the critics), I can see why you liked that year though. I remember it got to a point where I just watched them to see who'd beat them. But a lot of their games followed the same pattern, the it would be somewhat close around the half but they'd break it lose in the 3rd after making adjustments.

1990-1995 was good because for one, the talent pool was better at the time as opposed to the 00s or late 1990s. Those mid 80s draftees really peaked around that stretch plus the playoffs (intensity, competitivne match ups) were great for the most part. There was also a good balance between offense and defense as opposed to the slow paced, ugly defensive games of the late 90s or the uptempo, offensive-minded games of the 80s. I would say it was also more team-oriented and less egomaniacs running around. That time in the mid 90s that saw the players' salaries boom because of the massive increase in revenue is also a reason I think the game was focusing more on the individual at the time. That Juwan Howard contract in Miami (thank God didn't happen) that was terminated is a perfect example.

Those 1989-1994 ish draftees that didn't quite pan out (though there were guys like Shaq, C-Webb, Kidd ect that did) and the effect of that as well as the effect of Toronto and Vancouver gaining franchises hurt the league in the late 90s, imo. But till about 1995 or so, those dominant 80s stars carried the league well.

Great input, agreed.

Good call on the draftees. The Ewing, Hakeem, Stockton, Malone, Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, and Nique's played an intregal part of the success in the 90's. The bit about offense and defenses couldn't be more true. That middle ground welcomed some of the greatest rivalries of all time a la NY/IND, CHI/NY, DET/CHI, HOU/PHX, SA/HOU, etc. So much nostalgia, wow.

It was just a better brand of basketball being played then.

[Round Mound]

90s < 80s but 90s > 00s