06-21-2017, 01:37 PM
(06-21-2017, 08:33 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: That would be correct if all things were equal but basketball was still not as widespread or popular as it has been in the 90s and now.
It's not like there were hundreds of all-stars sitting at home that couldn't get into the league.
It is exactly like that. And it is true across sports leagues. In a small league there are great players who are not great enough to make the league. You had to be the greatest of the great to make it. But as you add more teams every expansion waters down the talent level. Whether or not the league is popular in a given era is irrelevant.
In 1950 baseball was extremely popular (pro boxing and pro wrestling were too) and there were only 16 teams. In 2000 there were 30 teams even though baseball was less popular than NASCAR or the NFL by that time. But the fact remains you had to be a better player in 1950 to make a roster - there were only 16. When there were almost twice as many in 2000 you had "stars" labeled stars because half their opponents were guys who wouldn't be in MLB in a 16-team league. The greats of the 1950's (and before) were truly great. The greats of today merely average when measured against history.
Don't blame me, it is just math.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
