Why the 1970s were the real “plumber’s era” in NBA history, not the 1960s like everybody says.
When modern NBA debates turn to the so-called “plumber’s era,” critics almost always target the 1950s or 1960s. But if we’re being honest about history, the decade that most closely fits that label is actually the 1970s. Between massive talent dilution, league expansion, and direct competition from the rival American Basketball Association, the 1970s NBA was arguably the weakest era the league has ever seen.
So we all know about the biggest factor – the ABA itself. From 1967 until the merger in 1976, the basketball talent pool was split between two competing leagues. Instead of the best players all being concentrated in the National Basketball Association, many elite stars chose the ABA for financial reasons or opportunity. Players like Julius Erving, George Gervin, Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, and David Thompson all spent key portions of their primes outside the NBA. That meant the NBA’s talent pool was dramatically diluted compared to other eras.
Imagine if today’s NBA suddenly lost multiple MVP-caliber players to a rival league. That’s essentially what happened throughout the early and mid-1970s. In fact, when the ABA–NBA merger finally happened in 1976, several ABA players immediately proved they were among the best in the world. Erving won NBA MVP in 1981, while Gilmore and Gervin quickly became All-NBA level players. The merger itself was proof that elite talent had been split for nearly a decade.
At the same time, the NBA was rapidly expanding. The league grew from 14 teams in 1968 to 22 teams by 1976, adding franchises like the Portland Trail Blazers, Buffalo Braves, Cleveland Cavaliers, Kansas City Kings, and New Orleans Jazz. Expansion spreads talent thinner even in a stable league—but doing it while competing with the ABA made the dilution even worse.
The result was a decade of unprecedented parity, but not necessarily because the league was stacked with elite teams. Between 1970 and 1979, eight different franchises won championships: the New York Knicks, Milwaukee Bucks, Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics, Golden State Warriors, Washington Bullets, Seattle SuperSonics, and Portland Trail Blazers. No dynasty dominated the decade because the overall level of play across the league was inconsistent.
Another way to see the difference between eras is to look at where the greatest players in history had their peaks. A large portion of the consensus top-30 players ever reached their primes during the 1960s. Legends like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, and John Havlicek all defined that era. Whether critics think the 1960s were weaker or not, the decade was clearly dominated by multiple all-time giants whose legacies still shape the league’s history.
By contrast, far fewer consensus top-30 players had their best years primarily in the 1970s. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar certainly did, and players like Moses Malone and Julius Erving were elite forces across the ABA/NBA divide. But beyond a handful of stars, the decade simply doesn’t produce the same concentration of historically great players as the 1960s, 1980s, or 1990s.
That context matters when evaluating the era. The 1970s weren’t weak because earlier generations were less athletic or less skilled—they were weak because the sport’s best players were literally divided between two leagues while the NBA kept adding teams.
So if the “plumber’s era” label has to apply somewhere, the 1970s make the strongest case. Talent was split, expansion diluted rosters, and the league’s competitive landscape became unusually unstable. In other words, the real talent shortage in NBA history didn’t happen in the 1950s or 1960s—it happened when the sport itself was divided in the 1970s.