We get it, everything nowadays sucks, old times were the best.

[Mor'Fiyah]

As I have pointed out, there have been quite a few faster NFL players than today's fastest player (Chris Johnson.) There have been sluggers who hit the ball farther than the longest of this era. There were even pitchers who may very well have thrown harder than the fastest pitchers today.

Having said that, though, why would Emmitt Smith be the all-time leading rusher in NFL history? He was never considered fast, nor was he very big. Larry Bird was never considered an exceptional athlete, nor was John Stockton. Greg Maddux could barely throw 90 MPH, yet he had ERAs of 1.56 and 1.63 in the middle of the "Steroid Era" in baseball. Joe Montana never had a big arm. And surely no one would consider Gretzky a great ATHLETE.

In any case, as I have said almost every post on this topic...the athletes of TODAY, are at BEST, only marginally better than those of even 50 years ago. And aside from Wilt, very few of the GREAT athletes of up to 50 years ago, were any more dominant, with their peers, than the GREATS of today.

MY point has been, though, that the truly GREAT athletes of even 50 years ago, would be nearly as great today. And then, if you gave them all the benefits of modern technology, they would as great, or greater.

Look...you tell me EXACTLY when today's NBA players became better than those of yesteryear. Do you think that Dalembert is better TODAY, than Shaq was 10 years ago? Do you think Dampier is better TODAY, than Hakeem 15 years ago? Do you think OJ Mayo is better TODAY, than MJ was 20 years ago? I'll even eliminate the other's like Moses, Gervin, Gilmore, Kareem, Dr. J., McAdoo, Maravich, West, Oscar,. Lucas, Reed, Thurmond, Russell, ...and jump right to Wilt. Do you HONESTLY believe that Dwight Howard, TODAY, is a better ATHLETE or BASKETBALL player than Wilt was 45 years ago?

Who cares about the list of elite players you just listed? You are having a completely different argument than I am having. And in fact I have agreed with your sentiments throughout. All of the elite players 20 years ago would be elite today. But the gap between them and the average players would be smaller than it was in their hey days is all I am saying. It would be more reflective of the smaller gaps today that make it APPEAR as if the elite players today just aren't as good as the elite players of the past.

[Mor'Fiyah]

I realize that i probably have to simplify this.

Lets say the NBA expanded to 40 teams this year. Would the talent pool of players be greater 20 years from now than if the NBA stayed at 30 teams?

OF COURSE NOT


The number of NBA teams has no effect on the talent pool of players. It isn't like mothers can decide whether or not they want to give birth to players with NBA talent.

I am glad you are simplifying it. Because you appear to have a very simplistic view of talent pools. No one is saying that talent pool size is correlated to the amount of teams in the league. What I am saying is that talent pool size is not a constant number that stays the same year after year after year. And it definitely does not stay the same over a 20 year gap. In sports that progressively get more popular, talent pools increase as the years go by.

30 years ago, how many people were xtreme skate boarders? How many people now? Is the talent pool of skate boarders the same today as it was 30 years ago? Or has the talent pool increased over the years as more and more people are attracted to the sport?

Just by virtue of there being more people playing basketball today than there were playing basketball 20 years ago means an increasing talent pool. Your entire argument is valid ONLY IF the talent pool of NBA level players is the same 20 years ago as it is now.