The reason it seems like there are less dominant players (and it really doesn't anymore, maybe it did 3-5 years ago when the league style was changing rapidly and the post-MJ era guys were on their way out) is for two main reasons.
1. The rest of the players on the court are way better than they used to be. Obviously Barkley and Malone are gonna seem larger than life when they're playing with 7-8 stiffs.
2. The zone rules make it significantly more difficult for 1 guy to just catch the ball, iso, double must come.....And the sophistication of schemes with the zone rules makes it harder for one guy to just destroy everyone like in the past. The best player (LeBron) playing in the vastly inferior conference on good teams basically masked this. But that was an extreme outlier.
You'll probably ignore this because it goes against what you want to believe, but it's the truth.
What you really think there used to be 10 superstars and now theres 2 because people just got worse at basketball when the training got way better and the pay increased 10fold? Jayson Tatum was basically bred to play basketball and put into skills camps when he was like 12.
This is a clear example of cognitive bias inhibiting ones ability to see the forest from the trees.
The reason it seems like there are less dominant players (and it really doesn't anymore, maybe it did 3-5 years ago when the league style was changing rapidly and the post-MJ era guys were on their way out) is for two main reasons.
1. The rest of the players on the court are way better than they used to be. The proliferation of the 3pt shot alone makes the role players significantly more valuable than past eras. Obviously D-Rob, Ewing, Barkley and Malone are gonna seem larger than life when they're playing with 7-8 stiffs.
2. The zone rules make it significantly more difficult for 1 guy to just catch the ball, iso, double must come.....And the sophistication of schemes with the zone rules makes it harder for one guy to just destroy everyone like in the past. The best player (LeBron) playing in the vastly inferior conference on good teams basically masked this to casual observers. But that was an extreme outlier.
You'll probably ignore this because it goes against what you want to believe, but it's the truth.
You really think there used to be 10 superstars and now theres 2 because people just got worse at basketball when the training got way better and the pay increased 10fold? Jayson Tatum was basically bred to play basketball and put into skills camps when he was like 12.
Part of your analogy would mean that a larger percentage of the athletic population has committed to the game of basketball over other sports, than in the past.
I'm going to debate that just isn't true.
Maybe if we dig deep enough there's some numbers online??
The other part argues something I already addressed in an earlier post a few days ago in this thread or the other.
That athletes have suddenly become head & shoulders better than those from ONLY 30-40 years ago.
Consider that it took humans millions or hundreds of millions of years to evolve, and understand how silly this theory is.
Did they somehow mutate to become Soooo much better in just a few short years?
Honestly it's absurd.
Yes there is better training & health awareness today, but not to the extent that today's athletes are far superior than those 30yrs ago.
All fun debate.
This is kind of like politics, nothing can change most people's minds.
Donald Trump could reveal himself as Jesus Christ himself & those who despise him would continue to do so.
I did do a search & saw that high school sports participation had increased many years in a row.
With that being said, there likely is more competition. (Just like the reason high schools are placed in districts based on their size & population which equates to more talent)
I suppose it all boils down to whether you trust your eyes in what you have seen & followed then & now, vs analogies.
So what you are saying is you think the 300 best basketball players in the world in 1990 are better than the 300 best now? This is what you believe?
If you base it on a larger pool, then the overall product is probably a little better.
But that does not necessarily mean the elite players today are better than those just a few years ago.
The pool is bigger but not enough to sway things to that extreme.
If we are in 2050 having this discussion & are seeing the same increase in participation, then maybe.
So what you are saying is you think the 300 best basketball players in the world in 1990 are better than the 300 best now? This is what you believe?
LeBron with 6 turnovers in his first Laker game. Let's talk about him being on pace to have the most turnovers in NBA history.
LeBron with 6 turnovers in his first Laker game. Let's talk about him being on pace to have the most turnovers in NBA history.
You cannot compare different eras for obvious reasons, different rules, training, nutrition, etc etc... Funny how the same flawed argument goes, "now a days players would destroy yesterday's player, because of the training, nutrition, coaching etc etc" This flawed argument is based on the HUGE assumption that yesterday's player would not use the same training, nutrition and coaching that today's players use! It's like comparing a cyclist from 40 years ago, using the same training, nutrition, coaching and BIKE from yesteryear to a modern cyclist. When this comparison is made, the debater often says "well of course they have to have access to the same bike" well then of course they have to have access to the same nutrition, coaching and training etc etc. That being said let's look at the numbers
Times leading the league in scoring
Jordan 10 (greatest scorer ever)
Lebron 1
First team all Defensive team
Jordan 9 (tied for greatest defender ever)
Lebron 5
So you have the greatest scorer ever and the greatest defender ever in the same body! How can you argue that he is not the greatest ever? Scores the most, defends the best. What else is he supposed to do to prove he's the best ever?