PDA

View Full Version : Top 20 players of 80-99 vs 00 vs 19, Who do you choose?



FlashBolt
01-02-2019, 08:01 AM
No particular ranking, my personal list:
80-99
MJ
Bird
Magic
Kareem
Barkley
David Robinson
Hakeem
Karl Malone
Drexler
Pippen
Shaq
Stockton
Moses
Isiah Thomas
Dominique
Worthy
Reggie
Ewing
Rodman
GP

00-19
Duncan
KG
Kobe
LeBron
Stephen Curry
Wade
Dirk
Durant
Harden
Chris Paul
Westbrook
Davis
Carmelo
Iverson
Dwight Howard
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
McGrady
Nash
Gasol


Few names might be missing if we wanted to debate it but that seems to be the best list I can come up with. Who you got?

Heediot
01-02-2019, 08:15 AM
It depends on the rules. Old rules, old team. New rules, new squad.

Fiba international regulated rules, I am going with the 99-before.

More elite 2 way players back then. More shooters, perimeter players/ball handlers now.

dhopisthename
01-02-2019, 11:38 AM
so just based on your order listed not any order by me

Kareem/David Robinson/Hakeem/Shaq/Moses/ewing
Barkley/Karl Malone/Rodman
Bird/Pippen/Dominque/Worthy
MJ/Drexler/Reggie
Magic/Stockton/Isaih Thomas/Gary Payton
vs
Duncan/Dwight/Gasol
KG/Dirk/Davis
Lebron/Durant/Melo/Paul Pierce
Kobe/Wade/Harden/Ray allen/Mcgrady
Curry/Cp3/westbrok/Iverson/Nash

its pretty close. the biggest question is which center to start for the 80's squad and do you start Hakeem/David at PF over Barkley. Also who does magic guard and who guards magic. I feel like with modern rules it would be easy enough to cover magic, but with the older rules whoever curry was covering would just be backed down into the post.

GREATNESS ONE
01-02-2019, 11:41 AM
Lmfao at the size differential.... Shaq, Kareem, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Moses vs Duncan, KG, Howard and Dirk...

Hawkeye15
01-02-2019, 12:12 PM
It depends on the rules. Old rules, old team. New rules, new squad.

Fiba international regulated rules, I am going with the 99-before.

More elite 2 way players back then. More shooters, perimeter players/ball handlers now.

agreed, totally depends on the rules. In today's NBA, while I fully admit Shaq couldn't be stopped, who the hell is he guarding? The trench bigs of old (outside Dream) couldn't deal with defending PnR's today, not a prayer. But, who could possibly guard those guys today either? Teams used to sign 7 footers off the street just to foul Shaq, there isn't a roster on the planet today that has enough bigs to toss at him.

So, it depends entirely on the rules. Talent wise, they are equal. I would change the rosters a bit depending on the rules as well.

valade16
01-02-2019, 01:39 PM
agreed, totally depends on the rules. In today's NBA, while I fully admit Shaq couldn't be stopped, who the hell is he guarding? The trench bigs of old (outside Dream) couldn't deal with defending PnR's today, not a prayer. But, who could possibly guard those guys today either? Teams used to sign 7 footers off the street just to foul Shaq, there isn't a roster on the planet today that has enough bigs to toss at him.

So, it depends entirely on the rules. Talent wise, they are equal. I would change the rosters a bit depending on the rules as well.

For today's rules you could run a squad like Stockton, Reggie, MJ, Bird, Shaq. That's a ton of shooting along with MJ/Shaq.

Tg11
01-02-2019, 02:00 PM
My top 20 (80s-00s)

MJ
Bird
Erving
Magic
Kareem
Worthy
Hakeem
David Robinson
Dominique
Stockton
Moses Malone
Isiah Thomas
Pippen
Payton
Ewing
Reggie Miller
Drexler
Rodman
GP


00s-19

Kobe
LeBron
Duncan
KG
Wade
Dirk
Melo
Pierce
J-Kidd
Steph Curry
Iverson
Vinsanity
McGrady
Ray Allen
Nash
Durant (KD)
Harden
Paul
Westbrook
Anthony Davis (AD)

R. Johnson#3
01-02-2019, 02:33 PM
I can only imagine how much Larry Bird would **** on everyone in todayís NBA where you canít be touched.

Tg11
01-02-2019, 02:34 PM
I can only imagine how much Larry Bird would **** on everyone in todayís NBA where you canít be touched.

Larry Bird would own today's era

Hawkeye15
01-02-2019, 04:01 PM
For today's rules you could run a squad like Stockton, Reggie, MJ, Bird, Shaq. That's a ton of shooting along with MJ/Shaq.

So who would we use today if they used the rules from 1992? I admit, the bigs today, not even sure we could pick enough to matter if we used the old rules. I still worry about the old school trench bigs trying to stop the floor stretchers and PnR's of today, but at the very least, we could sub out those bigs from yesterday with guys that would fit better today. Not so sure we could do that the other way around...

Hawkeye15
01-02-2019, 04:03 PM
I can only imagine how much Larry Bird would **** on everyone in todayís NBA where you canít be touched.

he has long been the guy I use when I say certain players would do better/worse in different eras. He would be the greatest stretch 4 the game ever saw. Interesting enough, send LeBron back to Bird's time and I think he would be even better than he is now.

valade16
01-02-2019, 04:07 PM
So who would we use today if they used the rules from 1992? I admit, the bigs today, not even sure we could pick enough to matter if we used the old rules. I still worry about the old school trench bigs trying to stop the floor stretchers and PnR's of today, but at the very least, we could sub out those bigs from yesterday with guys that would fit better today. Not so sure we could do that the other way around...

Good question. For Center the only name I can think of would be Embiid. You'd have to just get a ton of C depth like Gobert, Capela, Jordan to at least be able to foul guys like Shaq.

Hawkeye15
01-02-2019, 04:23 PM
Good question. For Center the only name I can think of would be Embiid. You'd have to just get a ton of C depth like Gobert, Capela, Jordan to at least be able to foul guys like Shaq.

Or do you march out centers who will force Shaq to come out and guard them? Idk, it is an interesting strategy debate. Maybe get Shaq running and hope to wear him out with some mobile bigs?

But, then they sub in Dream and your plan goes to **** haha

JordansBulls
01-02-2019, 07:24 PM
Good thread would go with the 80-99 group mainly because the bigs are better overall.

R. Johnson#3
01-03-2019, 11:02 AM
he has long been the guy I use when I say certain players would do better/worse in different eras. He would be the greatest stretch 4 the game ever saw. Interesting enough, send LeBron back to Bird's time and I think he would be even better than he is now.

Itís funny because most younger fans were saying his lack of athleticism would hurt him in todayís NBA. Then Jokic and Doncic showed up. As an NBA fan I hate the fact that the only Larry Bird I actually got to see was the guy whoíd be laying flat on his stomach every time he came off the floor. There isnít a doubt in my mind heíd be winning multiple MVPs in todayís game.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 11:04 AM
Itís funny because most younger fans were saying his lack of athleticism would hurt him in todayís NBA. Then Jokic and Doncic showed up. As an NBA fan I hate the fact that the only Larry Bird I actually got to see was the guy whoíd be laying flat on his stomach every time he came off the floor. There isnít a doubt in my mind heíd be winning multiple MVPs in todayís game.

Bird's athleticism is very underrated. He isn't going to win a shuttle drill, but his hands were cat quick, and his IQ was off the charts. I still think he would be hurt defensively, but yeah dude, he would easily be fighting for multiple MVP's in the current era. More wide open, can't grab him, and his shooting ability with that passing ability? Yeah, game over.

R. Johnson#3
01-03-2019, 11:14 AM
Iíd go with the older bunch to be honest

One glaring difference between the old group and the young group is the guards and their defence and itís largely due to their eras. Guards and Point Guards especially get away with having little to no defence as long as they contribute offensively. Guys like Nash, Steph and Harden come to mind. Where as the guards in the 80ís/90ís were usually one of or the best defenders on their respective squads. GP could put the clamps on literally anyone, MJ was one of the best defenders ever, Stock and Zeke were scrappy/dirty as hell but also great defenders.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 11:37 AM
Iíd go with the older bunch to be honest

One glaring difference between the old group and the young group is the guards and their defence and itís largely due to their eras. Guards and Point Guards especially get away with having little to no defence as long as they contribute offensively. Guys like Nash, Steph and Harden come to mind. Where as the guards in the 80ís/90ís were usually one of or the best defenders on their respective squads. GP could put the clamps on literally anyone, MJ was one of the best defenders ever, Stock and Zeke were scrappy/dirty as hell but also great defenders.

again, it depends on rules. Everyone becomes a better defender when you can grab people on the perimeter..

ewing
01-03-2019, 01:40 PM
00-99 in a rout. MJ, Magic, and Bird are 3 of the 4 best players.

Jeffy25
01-03-2019, 01:57 PM
It does greatly depend on the rules that we are playing under.

If it's the current rules, than 00-19, if it's the 80-99 rules, than the 80-99 squad

That said, I think this works better as a list of 12 vs 12

80-99
PG - Magic
SG - MJ
SF - Bird
PF - Karl Malone
C - Kareem
6. Hakeem
7. Pippen
8. Drexler
9. David Robinson
10. Shaq
11. Stockton
12. Moses


00-19
PG - Stephen Curry
SG - LeBron
SF - Durant
PF - Duncan
C - Davis
6. - Kobe
7. - Wade
8. - Dirk
9. - Harden
10. - Chris Paul
11. - Westbrook
12 - KG

Jeffy25
01-03-2019, 01:58 PM
00-99 in a rout. MJ, Magic, and Bird are 3 of the 4 best players.

I'd say having Bird, Magic, MJ, and Kareem on a starting lineup is completely unstoppable, and they'd have Malone likely as the starting 4

But the bench is better for the 00-19 squad by a good distance


Either way, it depends on the rules they are playing under. Are zone defenses legal? Can guys like Curry and Harden run to the basket and not be assaulted?

ewing
01-03-2019, 02:08 PM
I'd say having Bird, Magic, MJ, and Kareem on a starting lineup is completely unstoppable, and they'd have Malone likely as the starting 4

But the bench is better for the 00-19 squad by a good distance


Either way, it depends on the rules they are playing under. Are zone defenses legal? Can guys like Curry and Harden run to the basket and not be assaulted?

I didn't include 80's Kareem but he was a still a handful. Anyway I don't think rules matter. The rules have largely killed the traditional post center but it not like the 80-00 has to play David Robinson and Hakeem together. They can run Karl Malone at center if they want. They can play small, big, or huge. the other team can't play huge. Anyway top shelf talent wins and LeBron is the only guy on the top shelf for the 00-19 team

valade16
01-03-2019, 02:19 PM
I didn't include 80's Kareem but he was a still a handful. Anyway I don't think rules matter. The rules have largely killed the traditional post center but it not like the 80-00 has to play David Robinson and Hakeem together. They can run Karl Malone at center is they want. They can play small, big, or huge. the other team can't play huge. Anyway top shelf talent wins and LeBron is the only guy on the top shelf for the 00-19 team

Duncan?

kdspurman
01-03-2019, 02:30 PM
Duncan?

People forget about TD :(

FlashBolt
01-03-2019, 03:11 PM
Overall NBA talent has increased, IMO. So while the top players are always going to be top players, the overall talent pool has increased.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 03:17 PM
00-99 in a rout. MJ, Magic, and Bird are 3 of the 4 best players.

MJ is. Bird and Magic aren't better than Shaq (where are we putting him anyways), or Duncan. LeBron is on MJ's level.

Damn straight the rules matter. No way the team of old would employ all those bigs in a modern rule game. But, I do think the older guys team is more adaptable as far as what the roster build would look like in modern rules. I think the edge goes to the old timers simply because the trench big is gone now, and the modern era would struggle to put enough of them on a roster.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 03:18 PM
I didn't include 80's Kareem but he was a still a handful. Anyway I don't think rules matter. The rules have largely killed the traditional post center but it not like the 80-00 has to play David Robinson and Hakeem together. They can run Karl Malone at center if they want. They can play small, big, or huge. the other team can't play huge. Anyway top shelf talent wins and LeBron is the only guy on the top shelf for the 00-19 team

why do you even watch basketball anymore? It seems to me you truthfully believe all the greats are long retired, and the modern game doesn't hold a candle to your childhood game.

Nothing more annoying than those who think everything was better back in the day, or those who fall in love with shiny new toys under the "sports evolve" mantra..

valade16
01-03-2019, 03:43 PM
why do you even watch basketball anymore? It seems to me you truthfully believe all the greats are long retired, and the modern game doesn't hold a candle to your childhood game.

Nothing more annoying than those who think everything was better back in the day, or those who fall in love with shiny new toys under the "sports evolve" mantra..

I understand the nostalgia of it. What's difficult for me to comprehend is the idea that the talent of whatever activity it is has stagnated for so long. Only 1 person in the past 20 years, 2 decades, has come along as good as before? That seems unlikely and I'm struggling to find another thing where that's true outside the belief in sports.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 03:52 PM
I understand the nostalgia of it. What's difficult for me to comprehend is the idea that the talent of whatever activity it is has stagnated for so long. Only 1 person in the past 20 years, 2 decades, has come along as good as before? That seems unlikely and I'm struggling to find another thing where that's true outside the belief in sports.

sports mean way more to our lives when we are young. The feeling you get when young, can't be replicated for most. So guys like MJ are simply untouchable to most guys our age. Ewing grew up watching the 90's game, it's no mystery he probably holds it close to him.

But this thread is interesting, and it will depend on rules, period. The talent today is actually better from top to bottom than it was, and in 30 years, the same will be true (mostly due to the bottom of the league being better). It's just the way sports evolve. The training, the everything, etc.

Take Patrick Ewing. Would he even be an automatic HOF'er today? Or would he be a nastier Gobert? Sure the top guys can play in any era, but I am not really sure what you are smoking if you think Kevin Durant wouldn't score at will in the 80-90's just like he does today.

ewing
01-03-2019, 04:06 PM
why do you even watch basketball anymore? It seems to me you truthfully believe all the greats are long retired, and the modern game doesn't hold a candle to your childhood game.

Nothing more annoying than those who think everything was better back in the day, or those who fall in love with shiny new toys under the "sports evolve" mantra..

the team with 3 of the 4 best players wins. As far the rule argument I don't expect my guy Ewing to play with modern rules, I still expect his team to win b/c they have 3 of the 4 best players

ewing
01-03-2019, 04:09 PM
I understand the nostalgia of it. What's difficult for me to comprehend is the idea that the talent of whatever activity it is has stagnated for so long. Only 1 person in the past 20 years, 2 decades, has come along as good as before? That seems unlikely and I'm struggling to find another thing where that's true outside the belief in sports.

only one person has come along that is as good as other group's top 3. that's not really that weird. Those 4 guys are in there own little group as the best of the best and 3 of them are on one side.

ewing
01-03-2019, 04:15 PM
MJ is. Bird and Magic aren't better than Shaq (where are we putting him anyways), or Duncan. LeBron is on MJ's level.

Damn straight the rules matter. No way the team of old would employ all those bigs in a modern rule game. But, I do think the older guys team is more adaptable as far as what the roster build would look like in modern rules. I think the edge goes to the old timers simply because the trench big is gone now, and the modern era would struggle to put enough of them on a roster.

I disagree. Shaq and Timmy are at the top of the next shelf.

valade16
01-03-2019, 04:21 PM
only one person has come along that is as good as other group's top 3. that's not really that weird. Those 4 guys are in there own little group as the best of the best and 3 of them are on one side.

I disagree that Magic and Bird are that good compared to others.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 04:25 PM
I disagree. Shaq and Timmy are at the top of the next shelf.

oh I know you disagree. Like I said, you hold the 80-90's guys above where they should be. We all have our opinions...

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 04:26 PM
I disagree that Magic and Bird are that good compared to others.

of course they aren't. The only thing that separates Magic and CP3 for instance, is roster help and chips. Bird, while I think was amazing, isn't better than LeBron, Duncan, or Shaq. Hell he isn't better than a couple others, but I don't care to go down that road, because peak wise, Bird was great. Career wise, handful of other guys are better (Kobe for instance).

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 04:28 PM
the team with 3 of the 4 best players wins. As far the rule argument I don't expect my guy Ewing to play with modern rules, I still expect his team to win b/c they have 3 of the 4 best players

depends on rules. Guys like Steph are more effective under new rules. Guys like Magic under old. In the new rules, the older guys don't have the long range firepower or perimeter defense to keep up. In the old rules, the new guys don't have the bigs to keep up.

FlashBolt
01-03-2019, 04:50 PM
of course they aren't. The only thing that separates Magic and CP3 for instance, is roster help and chips. Bird, while I think was amazing, isn't better than LeBron, Duncan, or Shaq. Hell he isn't better than a couple others, but I don't care to go down that road, because peak wise, Bird was great. Career wise, handful of other guys are better (Kobe for instance).

There are some situations where I might even take CP3. Not a knock against Magic but CP3 is a superior shooter, elite passer, and almost as pesky of a defender as Stockton. Bird has supremely been overrated, IMO. A bit like T-Mac in that they were the cream of the crop at their prime but their longevity is highly questionable. I know you dislike KD but I'd take KD over Bird as well.

ewing
01-03-2019, 05:38 PM
depends on rules. Guys like Steph are more effective under new rules. Guys like Magic under old. In the new rules, the older guys don't have the long range firepower or perimeter defense to keep up. In the old rules, the new guys don't have the bigs to keep up.


You think Magic would be worse? He was a huge super fast guy, that pushed pace, drove north/south, and passed at an elite level. Sounds like what everyone wants these days. If surround Magic with shooters tell him to run i think you have what everyone wants. Defensively he is a little dicey but he's Magic so I think he makes up for it

Heediot
01-03-2019, 06:14 PM
depends on rules. Guys like Steph are more effective under new rules. Guys like Magic under old. In the new rules, the older guys don't have the long range firepower or perimeter defense to keep up. In the old rules, the new guys don't have the bigs to keep up.

Let's not totally discredit all the bigs back then being incapable of defense/mobility. Embiid, Duncan and Marc (to a smaller extent) proved that you can still be capable rim protectors/switching for guys with Size and Height.

Hakeem and Admiral for sure would be able to switch. I'm putting Zo in there too.There are others guy that might surprise, Mutombo, maybe Ewing...

Heres my team with the new style of play and rules.

Starters = Stockton, Reggie, Jordan, Bird, Hakeem (Stole the 1-4 from Valade, replaced Shaq with Dream). THe passing and ball movement ability of positions 1,3,4,5 would be sick. Stockton, Reggie, Bird space it out nicely. Hakeem and Jordan have respectable range as well. You have two of the goat defenders in MJ and Hakeem, with Stockton being an elite one as well. Reggie is basically starting for spacing purposes.

Bench = Magic, Dumars, Pippen, Rodman, Admiral. The perimeter guys can pass the ball with the best of them, Magic one of the goat passers. . Pippen and Dumars provide spacing. Rodman and Admiral provide switch-ability on elite level defense, and Admiral had a respectable jumper. I will rely on Magic's passing, and David Robinson versatile game to run the 2nd unit offense. I am surrounding Magic with 4 guys that can play defense with 3 all time great defenders.

I have Shaq and Mitch Richmond filling out the roster. Shaq is there as a specialist to pummel the other team in certain matchups. Mitch provides shooting and emergency offense if both/1 is needed.

I left out some nice talent like Mailman and Barkley, but you have to go with style of play and adapt and counter with the new rules/style.

Good luck trying to score on a lineup of Stockton, MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Hakeem.

Redrum187
01-03-2019, 08:53 PM
Shaq should go to the 00's team, he played more seasons and won more championships in that era. Once Shaq goes to the 00's team, I'll favor them to beat the 90's guys.

PG: Stephen Curry - Chris Paul
SG: Kawhi Leonard - Kobe Bryant
SF: LeBron James - Kevin Durant
PF: Dirk Nowitzki - Kevin Garnett
C: Shaq O'Neal - Tim Duncan

PG: Magic Johnson - John Stockton
SG: Michael Jordan - Reggie Miller
SF: Larry Bird - Scottie Pippen
PF: Hakeem Olajuwon - Charles Barkley
C: Kareem Abdul Jabar - David Robinson

I started Kawhi over Kobe because he would fit better and would provide the 3 and D needed. I also started Dirk at PF instead of Duncan because Dirk's spacing next to Shaq would be a nightmare for the 90's team. I also started Olajuwon at PF as he would be able to pound the 00's squad in the post.

This would be one helluva game though.

FlashBolt
01-03-2019, 09:25 PM
Shaq should go to the 00's team, he played more seasons and won more championships in that era. Once Shaq goes to the 00's team, I'll favor them to beat the 90's guys.

PG: Stephen Curry - Chris Paul
SG: Kawhi Leonard - Kobe Bryant
SF: LeBron James - Kevin Durant
PF: Dirk Nowitzki - Kevin Garnett
C: Shaq O'Neal - Tim Duncan

PG: Magic Johnson - John Stockton
SG: Michael Jordan - Reggie Miller
SF: Larry Bird - Scottie Pippen
PF: Hakeem Olajuwon - Charles Barkley
C: Kareem Abdul Jabar - David Robinson

I started Kawhi over Kobe because he would fit better and would provide the 3 and D needed. I also started Dirk at PF instead of Duncan because Dirk's spacing next to Shaq would be a nightmare for the 90's team. I also started Olajuwon at PF as he would be able to pound the 00's squad in the post.

This would be one helluva game though.

Majority of Shaq's peak was during the 90-99. He had maybe 2-3 elite seasons from the 00-retirement. Realistically, you could make an argument that after 01-02, Shaq wasn't nearly the same player he was.

Redrum187
01-03-2019, 10:29 PM
Majority of Shaq's peak was during the 90-99. He had maybe 2-3 elite seasons from the 00-retirement. Realistically, you could make an argument that after 01-02, Shaq wasn't nearly the same player he was.

What years are you using for his peak years? From 1996 to 1999, Shaq averaged 53.5 games per season and a lower VORP than his post 90's seasons. Coincidentally, Shaq's career high VORP is the 1999-2000 season (which should count as the 00's) but we can exclude that year if you want. The next handful of years VORP was higher than the previous handful of years. His Win Shares also were noticeably higher as well. In fact, most of his advanced numbers are favorable post 1999. It's close honestly, but it's fairly easy to see. That in conjunction to winning all his championships in the 2000's should make it clear cut that he's a 00's player.

*better raw stats
*better advanced stats
*all championships post 1999
*more years/games played post 1999

[Side note: You're underrating Shaq's 2003 season: 27.5/11.1/3.1/2.4 on what was his highest TS% in his career up to that point.]

Hawkeye15
01-03-2019, 11:00 PM
You think Magic would be worse? He was a huge super fast guy, that pushed pace, drove north/south, and passed at an elite level. Sounds like what everyone wants these days. If surround Magic with shooters tell him to run i think you have what everyone wants. Defensively he is a little dicey but he's Magic so I think he makes up for it

Yes I do. Terrible shooter, and unless he gets teammates to guard the speedy PGs today he is screwed on that end. He was awesome, but easily the biggest benefactor of roster support and conference strength of any star ever. More so than Lebron even in regards to both.

But, I also rank Magic top 10 despite beleiving if you stick him on the Suns during that time he doesn't win ****. So again, we enter individual impact versus career, and how we truly rank players.

FlashBolt
01-03-2019, 11:03 PM
What years are you using for his peak years? From 1996 to 1999, Shaq averaged 53.5 games per season and a lower VORP than his post 90's seasons. Coincidentally, Shaq's career high VORP is the 1999-2000 season (which should count as the 00's) but we can exclude that year if you want. The next handful of years VORP was higher than the previous handful of years. His Win Shares also were noticeably higher as well. In fact, most of his advanced numbers are favorable post 1999. It's close honestly, but it's fairly easy to see. That in conjunction to winning all his championships in the 2000's should make it clear cut that he's a 00's player.

*better raw stats
*better advanced stats
*all championships post 1999
*more years/games played post 1999

[Side note: You're underrating Shaq's 2003 season: 27.5/11.1/3.1/2.4 on what was his highest TS% in his career up to that point.]

I'm not putting three really good seasons ahead of eight, period. Shaq's best advanced stats season was 99-2000. It should not count as the 00's at all since the season began in the 99. All sources categorize it as such. It really isn't close. Three seasons don't outweigh eight. And I am not giving you the championship with Maimi. That didn't boost his career ranking one bit. Not nearly the same player.

98-99 was a lockout season so a bit misleading to say he only averaged 54 games per season in those three seasons without that piece of context. Though it doesn't change the average games played, he only missed one game in 98-99 and was not injured.

Also, we need to look at the fact that post 99-00 was when Kobe took a huge leap in terms of improving his game. Shaq had more help those years.

kdspurman
01-04-2019, 12:52 AM
Shaq should go to the 00's team, he played more seasons and won more championships in that era. Once Shaq goes to the 00's team, I'll favor them to beat the 90's guys.

PG: Stephen Curry - Chris Paul
SG: Kawhi Leonard - Kobe Bryant
SF: LeBron James - Kevin Durant
PF: Dirk Nowitzki - Kevin Garnett
C: Shaq O'Neal - Tim Duncan

PG: Magic Johnson - John Stockton
SG: Michael Jordan - Reggie Miller
SF: Larry Bird - Scottie Pippen
PF: Hakeem Olajuwon - Charles Barkley
C: Kareem Abdul Jabar - David Robinson

I started Kawhi over Kobe because he would fit better and would provide the 3 and D needed. I also started Dirk at PF instead of Duncan because Dirk's spacing next to Shaq would be a nightmare for the 90's team. I also started Olajuwon at PF as he would be able to pound the 00's squad in the post.

This would be one helluva game though.

Dirk would get abused big time by Hakeem. Duncan/Shaq would work, TD was a great passer. He could work that high/low game beautifully, and both guys ran the floor very well if it's in an up tempo game.

Plus, you need that rim protector against that 90s team and someone who can switch out on the perimeter if need be.

Redrum187
01-04-2019, 02:10 AM
I'm not putting three really good seasons ahead of eight, period. Shaq's best advanced stats season was 99-2000. It should not count as the 00's at all since the season began in the 99. All sources categorize it as such. It really isn't close. Three seasons don't outweigh eight. And I am not giving you the championship with Maimi. That didn't boost his career ranking one bit. Not nearly the same player.

98-99 was a lockout season so a bit misleading to say he only averaged 54 games per season in those three seasons without that piece of context. Though it doesn't change the average games played, he only missed one game in 98-99 and was not injured.

Also, we need to look at the fact that post 99-00 was when Kobe took a huge leap in terms of improving his game. Shaq had more help those years.

That isn't how it works. When someone says "Shaq won his first championship" they don't say it was the 1999 season... They say Shaq/the Lakers were the 2000 champs. I can guarantee the years they won on their rings aren't listing the year at the start of the season but rather the year it finished.

1989-1990 = 1st year of 90s
1990-1991 = 2nd year of 90s
1991-1992 = 3rd year of 90s
1992-1993 = 4th year of 90s
1993-1994 = 5th year of 90s
1994-1995 = 6th year of 90s
1995-1996 = 7th year of 90s
1996-1997 = 8th year of 90s
1997-1998 = 9th year of 90s
1998-1999 = 10th year of 90s
1999-2000 = 1st year of 00s (not the 11th year of 90s)

As for it being a lock out year, okay, if we assume he averaged his career average of games per season it still was a really low game count. The fact it was a lockout year actually only further reinforces my point that he had more games in 00's and THAT was his prime. I don't argue that MAYBE Shaq had more years of playing elite PRE-PRIME in the 90s, but your argument was that his prime was in the 90's and it clearly wasn't. "Fat Shaq" aka the most dominant player of all time by many, was a 00's player... that's fact.

We do agree that Kobe started to become his own in the early 2000's as well, but that does nothing to the point/fact that Shaq's prime was based in the 2000. In the 2000 season (1999-2000), Shaq was 27 years old, which is considered the prime age of players. I'm not sure why you disagree with this so much.

*best season in the year 2000*
*most if not all prime in 2000*
*all championships and FMVP's in 2000's*
*best advanced stats in 2000's*
*turned 27 in the 2000 season*

FlashBolt
01-04-2019, 02:28 AM
That isn't how it works. When someone says "Shaq won his first championship" they don't say it was the 1999 season... They say Shaq/the Lakers were the 2000 champs. I can guarantee the years they won on their rings aren't listing the year at the start of the season but rather the year it finished.

1989-1990 = 1st year of 90s
1990-1991 = 2nd year of 90s
1991-1992 = 3rd year of 90s
1992-1993 = 4th year of 90s
1993-1994 = 5th year of 90s
1994-1995 = 6th year of 90s
1995-1996 = 7th year of 90s
1996-1997 = 8th year of 90s
1997-1998 = 9th year of 90s
1998-1999 = 10th year of 90s
1999-2000 = 1st year of 00s (not the 11th year of 90s)

As for it being a lock out year, okay, if we assume he averaged his career average of games per season it still was a really low game count. The fact it was a lockout year actually only further reinforces my point that he had more games in 00's and THAT was his prime. I don't argue that MAYBE Shaq had more years of playing elite PRE-PRIME in the 90s, but your argument was that his prime was in the 90's and it clearly wasn't. "Fat Shaq" aka the most dominant player of all time by many, was a 00's player... that's fact.

We do agree that Kobe started to become his own in the early 2000's as well, but that does nothing to the point/fact that Shaq's prime was based in the 2000. In the 2000 season (1999-2000), Shaq was 27 years old, which is considered the prime age of players. I'm not sure why you disagree with this so much.

*best season in the year 2000*
*most if not all prime in 2000*
*all championships and FMVP's in 2000's*
*best advanced stats in 2000's*
*turned 27 in the 2000 season*

That just means they won the championship that season. The season starts at 1999. You're making a false argument. The season we are in today is the 2018-2019 season - not the 2019-2020 season.

Jeffy25
01-04-2019, 02:41 AM
why do you even watch basketball anymore? It seems to me you truthfully believe all the greats are long retired, and the modern game doesn't hold a candle to your childhood game.

Nothing more annoying than those who think everything was better back in the day, or those who fall in love with shiny new toys under the "sports evolve" mantra..

I watched Game 5 of the Blazers and Pistons from 1990 tonight on the NBA TV channel.

Clyde and Isiah are probably the only guys on that court that could have adapted to the game right now (no changes in training etc) (we could discuss guys like Terry Porter and Joe Dumars to an extent).

It's just such a vastly different game, and those guys don't have a role any longer. And the pure athleticism and length of all of the current players compared to then is drastically superior now.

The Buck Williams of the game wouldn't have a role any longer (a 6'8 post scorer and rebounder with limited range), and they wouldn't even get drafted to the NBA right now, or would be at the very best, only a role player.

The rules matter, because if you can't shoot right now, then half the league from the 80-99 era don't have much of a role. Every body has to be able to stretch the floor now.

Likewise, if we are playing in the 80's, then guys like Curry might get relegated more to becoming role players because they can't cross the 3 point line ever and have to hide behind screens to be effective.

Jeffy25
01-04-2019, 02:44 AM
the team with 3 of the 4 best players wins. As far the rule argument I don't expect my guy Ewing to play with modern rules, I still expect his team to win b/c they have 3 of the 4 best players

I feel like we are dismissing some of the current players a little too quickly when discussing where they could rank in the all-time ranks, considering they are still active.

Guys like Curry, Durant, Harden, and Davis very well could end up top 10 players still all-time, depending how they age and how long they go. And Duncan is arguably a top 5 guy ever, and most have him over Bird in all-time ranks for a variety of reasons.

Also, Shaq doesn't really have a home here, because he straddles those eras really well.

Redrum187
01-04-2019, 03:41 AM
That just means they won the championship that season. The season starts at 1999. You're making a false argument. The season we are in today is the 2018-2019 season - not the 2019-2020 season.

You're making a false argument that a season is referenced by the start of the season. That is absolutely false. The season is referenced by the year it ends. Hence, the Lakers are 2000 Champs. How is that a false argument?

This is the 2019 season, not the 2018 season. In other words, this is the last season of the 2010's. Next season, is the beginning of the 2020's as it will be referenced as the 2020 season.

By the way, even if you disagree with the fact that seasons are referenced by the year they end (and not start), wouldn't you agree that in the 1999-2000 season, more games were played in the year 2000 than in 1999? I'll assume you will concede that point, yet... even though more games are played in 2000 than in 1999, you count it towards the 90's? It doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it from your point of view.

Redrum187
01-04-2019, 03:48 AM
One last question, since when has a players prime ended by the age of 27? If anything, bigs hit their prime a little later than other players. Pre-prime Shaq was amazing, don't get me wrong... but I won't count baby Shaq as prime Shaq when all his achievements and accolades happened in the year 2000 and later.

In the year 2000 (which does not contain the numbers "90-99" anywhere in it), Shaq won his MVP in addition to his FMVP. That wasn't the end of his prime or the end of the other accolades he received... it was merely the START.

ewing
01-04-2019, 05:52 AM
Yes I do. Terrible shooter, and unless he gets teammates to guard the speedy PGs today he is screwed on that end. He was awesome, but easily the biggest benefactor of roster support and conference strength of any star ever. More so than Lebron even in regards to both.

But, I also rank Magic top 10 despite beleiving if you stick him on the Suns during that time he doesn't win ****. So again, we enter individual impact versus career, and how we truly rank players.

Ahh it supports your LeBron homerism, got ya


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
01-04-2019, 06:07 AM
I feel like we are dismissing some of the current players a little too quickly when discussing where they could rank in the all-time ranks, considering they are still active.

Guys like Curry, Durant, Harden, and Davis very well could end up top 10 players still all-time, depending how they age and how long they go. And Duncan is arguably a top 5 guy ever, and most have him over Bird in all-time ranks for a variety of reasons.

Also, Shaq doesn't really have a home here, because he straddles those eras really well.

Harden and KD have peaked imo. I donít put guy top shelve for life time achievement. For example KD could do this for 10 more years but at his best Larry Bird was still better. Curry and AD could still improve show something new


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
01-04-2019, 06:11 AM
I watched Game 5 of the Blazers and Pistons from 1990 tonight on the NBA TV channel.

Clyde and Isiah are probably the only guys on that court that could have adapted to the game right now (no changes in training etc) (we could discuss guys like Terry Porter and Joe Dumars to an extent).

It's just such a vastly different game, and those guys don't have a role any longer. And the pure athleticism and length of all of the current players compared to then is drastically superior now.

The Buck Williams of the game wouldn't have a role any longer (a 6'8 post scorer and rebounder with limited range), and they wouldn't even get drafted to the NBA right now, or would be at the very best, only a role player.

The rules matter, because if you can't shoot right now, then half the league from the 80-99 era don't have much of a role. Every body has to be able to stretch the floor now.

Likewise, if we are playing in the 80's, then guys like Curry might get relegated more to becoming role players because they can't cross the 3 point line ever and have to hide behind screens to be effective.

Lol. Danny Ainge would a better basketball player. Jerome Kersey would be better. Cliff Robinson would be better. Bill Lambeer would be a star. Some guy would struggle some would flourish


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heediot
01-04-2019, 06:23 AM
Shooting is very valuable but not being able to bomb 3s away is being under-rated here. Okc with kd and a bunch of non 3 point shooters should have beaten golden State before he bolted. The spurs are doing ok without the shooters everywhere, the talent just isn't there for pop to win more as great as he is. But it goes to show that u can do damage if with high usage guys that aren't reliant on the 3 ball. You just have to adjust to your talent. Even okc right now doesn't have crazy shooters everywhere and they are still winning at a nice clip. More then one way to skin a cat. People are enamored with advanced star and believe shooting 3s is the only way to go which to me is false. I think talent and chemistry and even coaching come before just bombing away 3s in this era and any other era. Houston and Boston shot their way out of the game 7 cfs. If they had more then just 3 point shooting they both had chances to make the finals.

Hawkeye15
01-04-2019, 10:18 AM
Ahh it supports your LeBron homerism, got ya


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

haha, really? Sorry, I just don't hold the old timers on a pedestal without evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and careers. It has zero to do with LeBron. Zero.

Magic was beat by a sub .500 team in the playoffs. He played sub .500 teams almost yearly in the playoffs. In fact, he rarely faced an elite team out west at all during the 80's. He couldn't shoot. He didn't deal with guards who were the athletes they are today (SG's from the 80-90's now play PG). It's just a fact.

Bird, had an amazing peak. His overall ranking comes from the fact he had like 8 good years. Longevity is not kind to him.

I get we like to hold our childhood heroes up high, but at some point, you just sound like an old man shaking a stick.

Hawkeye15
01-04-2019, 10:19 AM
Lol. Danny Ainge would a better basketball player. Jerome Kersey would be better. Cliff Robinson would be better. Bill Lambeer would be a star. Some guy would struggle some would flourish


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Laimbeer wouldn't even have a place in the league today. He would get run off the floor. But, plenty of guys today wouldn't have a place in the game 30 years ago either. Goes both ways. Hell half your Knicks team from 93 fit the bill...

ewing
01-04-2019, 10:37 AM
haha, really? Sorry, I just don't hold the old timers on a pedestal without evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and careers. It has zero to do with LeBron. Zero.

Magic was beat by a sub .500 team in the playoffs. He played sub .500 teams almost yearly in the playoffs. In fact, he rarely faced an elite team out west at all during the 80's. He couldn't shoot. He didn't deal with guards who were the athletes they are today (SG's from the 80-90's now play PG). It's just a fact.

Bird, had an amazing peak. His overall ranking comes from the fact he had like 8 good years. Longevity is not kind to him.

I get we like to hold our childhood heroes up high, but at some point, you just sound like an old man shaking a stick.

Magic was a great player and his playoff comp/ record has nothing to do with it. The fact that you are bringing it up just shows that your opinion on Magic is biased by your LeBron narrative.

ewing
01-04-2019, 10:44 AM
Laimbeer wouldn't even have a place in the league today. He would get run off the floor. But, plenty of guys today wouldn't have a place in the game 30 years ago either. Goes both ways. Hell half your Knicks team from 93 fit the bill...

Bill was 6'11, an elite passer, had a pure stroke, was a ball mover, and defended well all over the floor (both out on the floor and at the rim). On top of that he was a leader and great communicator on the floor. He was basically a better Al Hartford. He had everything you would want out of a 5 today except for elite athleticism and elite roll finishing. James Edwards would get run off the floor imo. john Sally would be useless. Bill would excel

valade16
01-04-2019, 01:03 PM
You're making a false argument that a season is referenced by the start of the season. That is absolutely false. The season is referenced by the year it ends. Hence, the Lakers are 2000 Champs. How is that a false argument?

This is the 2019 season, not the 2018 season. In other words, this is the last season of the 2010's. Next season, is the beginning of the 2020's as it will be referenced as the 2020 season.

By the way, even if you disagree with the fact that seasons are referenced by the year they end (and not start), wouldn't you agree that in the 1999-2000 season, more games were played in the year 2000 than in 1999? I'll assume you will concede that point, yet... even though more games are played in 2000 than in 1999, you count it towards the 90's? It doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it from your point of view.

Shaq's peak was the early 00's. And yes the 99-00 season is considered the beginning of the 00's.

valade16
01-04-2019, 01:04 PM
Magic was a great player and his playoff comp/ record has nothing to do with it. The fact that you are bringing it up just shows that your opinion on Magic is biased by your LeBron narrative.

Everyone ranks their players based on how it makes LeBron look.

ewing
01-04-2019, 01:24 PM
Everyone ranks their players based on how it makes LeBron look.

nah just Hawk and MTM

Hawkeye15
01-04-2019, 02:54 PM
Magic was a great player and his playoff comp/ record has nothing to do with it. The fact that you are bringing it up just shows that your opinion on Magic is biased by your LeBron narrative.

whatever you need to tell yourself dude.

Hell yes Magic's career ranking gets inflated by his teams winning. That is unfortunately how it works..

This has nothing to do with LeBron. Not sure why you need to use that as a go to anytime you feel the need to be cute with a response

Hawkeye15
01-04-2019, 02:55 PM
Bill was 6'11, an elite passer, had a pure stroke, was a ball mover, and defended well all over the floor (both out on the floor and at the rim). On top of that he was a leader and great communicator on the floor. He was basically a better Al Hartford. He had everything you would want out of a 5 today except for elite athleticism and elite roll finishing. James Edwards would get run off the floor imo. john Sally would be useless. Bill would excel

let me rephrase-THAT version of Laimbeer would have no place in today's game.

Al Horford would literally destroy Laimbeer in any athletic trait there is. Hell I do. And Horford is basically Otis Thorpe with a jumper

ewing
01-04-2019, 03:22 PM
let me rephrase-THAT version of Laimbeer would have no place in today's game.

Al Horford would literally destroy Laimbeer in any athletic trait there is. Hell I do. And Horford is basically Otis Thorpe with a jumper

i don't see much difference athletically.

ewing
01-04-2019, 03:34 PM
whatever you need to tell yourself dude.

Hell yes Magic's career ranking gets inflated by his teams winning. That is unfortunately how it works..

This has nothing to do with LeBron. Not sure why you need to use that as a go to anytime you feel the need to be cute with a response

but easily the biggest benefactor of roster support and conference strength of any star ever. More so than Lebron even in regards to both.


This is what you said without anyone ever mentioning LeBorn or making any Magic/Bron comparison. With regard to what i actually posted yes I think Magic would do well today. He was a huge guard and a revolutionary open court player. I think he would benefit from less contact and a fast pace. I think the grind it out 90s is where he would have more trouble. He was better leading a fast break then anyone ever

Redrum187
01-04-2019, 04:14 PM
Shaq's peak was the early 00's. And yes the 99-00 season is considered the beginning of the 00's.

Right on brother, was just trying to explain why Shaq is in the wrong group. I wouldn't push this point to the OP if Shaq being in his rightful place wasn't game changing for me on who would win.

If Shaq isn't on the 00's, I comfortably pick the 90's guys. If Shaq is on the 00's, I might give the 00's the edge.

Hawkeye15
01-04-2019, 04:34 PM
Right on brother, was just trying to explain why Shaq is in the wrong group. I wouldn't push this point to the OP if Shaq being in his rightful place wasn't game changing for me on who would win.

If Shaq isn't on the 00's, I comfortably pick the 90's guys. If Shaq is on the 00's, I might give the 00's the edge.

exactly how I feel.

Jeffy25
01-05-2019, 05:27 AM
Harden and KD have peaked imo. I donít put guy top shelve for life time achievement. For example KD could do this for 10 more years but at his best Larry Bird was still better. Curry and AD could still improve show something new


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see how you can saw Bird>Durant, especially if Durant did this for 10 more years. Bird's entire career was barely more than 10 years.

ewing
01-05-2019, 05:44 AM
I don't see how you can saw Bird>Durant, especially if Durant did this for 10 more years. Bird's entire career was barely more than 10 years.

No offense but I told you why in the post you quoted. Bird at his best was better then KD has ever been. So long as thatís the case if you ask me who was better Iím going to say Bird


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeffy25
01-05-2019, 05:10 PM
No offense but I told you why in the post you quoted. Bird at his best was better then KD has ever been. So long as thatís the case if you ask me who was better Iím going to say Bird


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough

Just a hypothetical for you, not specifically for a Bird/Durant argument.

How much should we value peak vs longevity?

Let's say Player A's peak is valued at 100, and Player B's peak is valued at 80
But Player A's career lasts 12 years, and his peak 6 years. And Player B's career lasts 20 years, and his peak 6 years

Basically, at what point do we take the lesser peak player as the better player?

Guys like McGrady are valued higher by some because he was so explosive during his peak, but his peak was very short compared to other greats.

ewing
01-06-2019, 11:17 AM
Fair enough

Just a hypothetical for you, not specifically for a Bird/Durant argument.

How much should we value peak vs longevity?

Let's say Player A's peak is valued at 100, and Player B's peak is valued at 80
But Player A's career lasts 12 years, and his peak 6 years. And Player B's career lasts 20 years, and his peak 6 years

Basically, at what point do we take the lesser peak player as the better player?

Guys like McGrady are valued higher by some because he was so explosive during his peak, but his peak was very short compared to other greats.

One more time. I donít. You can if you want? If player A played for 10 years with a 6 year peak that player B didnít touch he was a better player. Guys like Walton and T-Mac didnít sustain long to have to adapt and prove it in different circumstances (plus T Mac couldnít win a playoff series despite having enough surrounding talent). Bird saw it all and was great through it all for a period. I donít think you become better bc you played longer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JasonJohnHorn
01-06-2019, 12:06 PM
Those who choose the more current generation would likely do so based on the 3pt shooters, but that wouldn't hold up for two reasons:

1. Though guys from 80-99 didn't shoot them as often, they could still hit them. It was a matter of coaching, not skill. Stockton. Bird. Miller. Hornecek. They culd all hit 3s. And if you give them each a steady diet, like 7-10 shots a game, they'll get a beter rhythm and be able to hit at a higher rate (I think that is a fair assessment though it is hard to prove).

2. The post player in that era shot at a higher percentage. 50% was standard (10 point for 10 shots), but guys like Parish and McHale were hitting around 60% (12 points for 10 shots) which is equaly t 40% form the arc (12 points for ten shots).


They also have great passers at all positions. Barkely. Bird. Hakeem. RobinsonAnd the best big men. 90s Shaq would lose to 00s Shaq, but Hakeem and Kareem, Moses, and DRob and Ewing would give Shaq plenty of trouble. At power forward, I feel like the 00-99 have it. I'll take Dirk, Duncan and Garnett or Barkely, Malone and whoever else you add in there. But you throw in Rodman, and this becomes interesting.

SF goes to 00-19: LBJ an KD? T-Mac? That's pretty good. But Pippen is a legendar defender and Bird is a legendary shooter and likely the best rebounder and passer at his position ever.

The guard is where the 80-99 kills it to me. Curry would get smothered defensive by Payton (or Jordan), and Stockton would cover Curry well too. Jordan> Kobe (aka Jordan light). But you get the size a PG (Payton and Magic).


You let Rudy-T coach the 80-99 team, with his in-and-out post up with Hakeem (the template to the 3-pt game today), and you add great 3pt shooters (Bird, Miller, Stockton, Hornecek) to his line up instead of average or below average 3pt shooters, and suddenly that roster is more devestating than the Warriors could ever hope to be.

Raps18-19 Champ
01-06-2019, 05:10 PM
Shaq should be 00s.

Raps18-19 Champ
01-06-2019, 05:11 PM
agreed, totally depends on the rules. In today's NBA, while I fully admit Shaq couldn't be stopped, who the hell is he guarding? The trench bigs of old (outside Dream) couldn't deal with defending PnR's today, not a prayer. But, who could possibly guard those guys today either? Teams used to sign 7 footers off the street just to foul Shaq, there isn't a roster on the planet today that has enough bigs to toss at him.

So, it depends entirely on the rules. Talent wise, they are equal. I would change the rosters a bit depending on the rules as well.

What rules are out there that would make up the big discrepancy in 3 point shooting?

ewing
01-06-2019, 07:09 PM
What rules are out there that would make up the big discrepancy in 3 point shooting?

Being allowed to be near the offensive player


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeffy25
01-06-2019, 07:34 PM
One more time. I donít. You can if you want? If player A played for 10 years with a 6 year peak that player B didnít touch he was a better player. Guys like Walton and T-Mac didnít sustain long to have to adapt and prove it in different circumstances (plus T Mac couldnít win a playoff series despite having enough surrounding talent). Bird saw it all and was great through it all for a period. I donít think you become better bc you played longer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Better, and better career can be exclusive

Spencer Dinwiddie can be argued as better than Robert Horry because he's had better games than Horry, but you'd never take Dinwiddie's career over Horry's

ewing
01-06-2019, 07:50 PM
Better, and better career can be exclusive

Spencer Dinwiddie can be argued as better than Robert Horry because he's had better games than Horry, but you'd never take Dinwiddie's career over Horry's

No one would argue that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeffy25
01-07-2019, 12:09 AM
No one would argue that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If better is simply being a better performer for any amount of time, then why wouldn't they?

What's the required minimum of a peak? Full seasons? where would a guy like Kiki Vandeweghe fit?

valade16
01-07-2019, 12:56 PM
One more time. I donít. You can if you want? If player A played for 10 years with a 6 year peak that player B didnít touch he was a better player. Guys like Walton and T-Mac didnít sustain long to have to adapt and prove it in different circumstances (plus T Mac couldnít win a playoff series despite having enough surrounding talent). Bird saw it all and was great through it all for a period. I donít think you become better bc you played longer

I personally distinguish the difference as better vs greater. Greater is the sum total of your accolades and stats, but better is who, at their absolute peak, is who is simply the better player at basketball.

Hawkeye15
01-07-2019, 01:12 PM
how hard is this to understand:

a player can be a better player than a guy who had a better, more highly ranked career.

Rankings gets skewed in team sports, and individuals must be judged in different ways. otherwise we are just giving certain players extra credit for having better rosters/FO's.

Its beyond simple to understand.

Oefarmy2005
01-07-2019, 03:58 PM
1) Why don't people understand that some elite defenders in the 90s(Pippen) would not be as good today. Don't get me wrong, Pippen would still be a top defender(similar to Kawhi), but his stats would surely suffer with no hand checking, etc, at least on-ball.
2) The 1999-2000 season should be in the 2000's.
3) I read someone saying that Bird was better at his peak then some other guys(I don't remember who, let's just say Duncan). Guess what, T-Mac was a top 10 player if you disregard how short his peak was.
4) Hawk likes has commented that Magic's status is boosted by his roster and chips, so does Duncan's. KG would be 5-10 spots higher on that list if he won those chips Duncan has. Unfortunately this is a team sport(only in the sense of evaluating individual players), and how well a team does adds at least 20% to your position on the all-time ladder.

Hawkeye15
01-07-2019, 04:30 PM
1) Why don't people understand that some elite defenders in the 90s(Pippen) would not be as good today. Don't get me wrong, Pippen would still be a top defender(similar to Kawhi), but his stats would surely suffer with no hand checking, etc, at least on-ball.
2) The 1999-2000 season should be in the 2000's.
3) I read someone saying that Bird was better at his peak then some other guys(I don't remember who, let's just say Duncan). Guess what, T-Mac was a top 10 player if you disregard how short his peak was.
4) Hawk likes has commented that Magic's status is boosted by his roster and chips, so does Duncan's. KG would be 5-10 spots higher on that list if he won those chips Duncan has. Unfortunately this is a team sport(only in the sense of evaluating individual players), and how well a team does adds at least 20% to your position on the all-time ladder.

I remember watching Gary Payton literally grab players on the drive and shove them back in front of him. That was considered "great defense". Today, that is 2 and the ball out of bounds.

It doesn't mean Payton wouldn't be an awesome defender now. But it means those guys would be getting killed by the likes of Curry or Westbrook today, just like everyone else. I would love to see what kind of defender Rubio would be if he could literally just hack you and grab you.

JAZZNC
01-07-2019, 08:21 PM
I remember watching Gary Payton literally grab players on the drive and shove them back in front of him. That was considered "great defense". Today, that is 2 and the ball out of bounds.

It doesn't mean Payton wouldn't be an awesome defender now. But it means those guys would be getting killed by the likes of Curry or Westbrook today, just like everyone else. I would love to see what kind of defender Rubio would be if he could literally just hack you and grab you.

I remember when basketball was a contact sport. But you're 100% right.

FlashBolt
01-08-2019, 12:54 AM
I remember watching Gary Payton literally grab players on the drive and shove them back in front of him. That was considered "great defense". Today, that is 2 and the ball out of bounds.

It doesn't mean Payton wouldn't be an awesome defender now. But it means those guys would be getting killed by the likes of Curry or Westbrook today, just like everyone else. I would love to see what kind of defender Rubio would be if he could literally just hack you and grab you.

Don't forget Stockton as well. These guys had the toughness but the defense was built more on that than anything else. In some cases, and GP is a top five favorite player of mine, the defense was just dirty but no one thought anything of it.

FlashBolt
01-08-2019, 12:55 AM
1) Why don't people understand that some elite defenders in the 90s(Pippen) would not be as good today. Don't get me wrong, Pippen would still be a top defender(similar to Kawhi), but his stats would surely suffer with no hand checking, etc, at least on-ball.
2) The 1999-2000 season should be in the 2000's.
3) I read someone saying that Bird was better at his peak then some other guys(I don't remember who, let's just say Duncan). Guess what, T-Mac was a top 10 player if you disregard how short his peak was.
4) Hawk likes has commented that Magic's status is boosted by his roster and chips, so does Duncan's. KG would be 5-10 spots higher on that list if he won those chips Duncan has. Unfortunately this is a team sport(only in the sense of evaluating individual players), and how well a team does adds at least 20% to your position on the all-time ladder.

Nah, don't think T-Mac quite makes the cut anymore. Not with KD, Curry, and even Harden generating some of the seasons they have.

Bostonjorge
01-08-2019, 02:20 AM
MVP season Derrick Rose puts team 00-now over the top. Magic and Jordan are the only ďGuardsĒ who are better then that version of Rose.

80-99 have the better Cís but the 00-now have the better PF, SF, SG,PG. 00-now has more players.

Hawkeye15
01-08-2019, 10:15 AM
I remember when basketball was a contact sport. But you're 100% right.

even if we believe the old NBA was tougher, better defense, etc (much of that is myth), as long as the rules are the same for all players, I would lean to the newer guys with the modern rules and the older guys with the older rules. Simply because of the floor spacer/ball handlers versus trench bigs in the respective eras.

Hawkeye15
01-08-2019, 10:17 AM
MVP season Derrick Rose puts team 00-now over the top. Magic and Jordan are the only ďGuardsĒ who are better then that version of Rose.

80-99 have the better Cís but the 00-now have the better PF, SF, SG,PG. 00-now has more players.

Drexler
Stockton
Jordan
Zeke
Magic
Payton

off the top of my head, all easily better than Rose ever has been.

Heediot
01-09-2019, 11:12 AM
Being allowed to be near the offensive player


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree. The game is coming way easier for Doncic in the nba vs. the Euroleague. They are up in his grill in Europe and that step back three is harder to pull off. Off the ball defense is better overseas too. Doncic ability to drive is much easier with less touching allowed and bigs not being able to camp in the paint. So you can set up the three much easier by the threat of penetration. The league is a joke and ball handler have it easy as ****. You can thrive if your good/great ball handler/shooter combo or ball handler/high athleticism combo in this day and age.

Hawkeye15
01-09-2019, 12:00 PM
I totally agree. The game is coming way easier for Doncic in the nba vs. the Euroleague. They are up in his grill in Europe and that step back three is harder to pull off. Off the ball defense is better overseas too. Doncic ability to drive is much easier with less touching allowed and bigs not being able to camp in the paint. So you can set up the three much easier by the threat of penetration. The league is a joke and ball handler have it easy as ****. You can thrive if your good/great ball handler/shooter combo or ball handler/high athleticism combo in this day and age.

ask Kobe, or MJ which rules they like better.

A great 1-1 scorer would absolutely prefer the hand check era, over the zone era. Getting by one guy, even if he is physical with you, is easy compared to getting through a wall behind him.

I only say this, because good defense is somehow always confused with physicality. And they don't go hand in hand.

Heediot
01-09-2019, 12:28 PM
ask Kobe, or MJ which rules they like better.

A great 1-1 scorer would absolutely prefer the hand check era, over the zone era. Getting by one guy, even if he is physical with you, is easy compared to getting through a wall behind him.

I only say this, because good defense is somehow always confused with physicality. And they don't go hand in hand.

If MJ played the same exact game there's an argument about the new era with zones/easier doubles being harder. MJ is too smart not to adapt though. He'd just work on is 3 ball and pick n roll game to counter. It's all about being adaptable.

You look at Harden, Westy, Derozan type guys that came into the league. None of these guys were that savy or were projected to have these gaudy passing numbers. These guys got coached worked on their games and used the rules to teir advantage. Yet come playoff time when things tighten up, their numbers all drop.

Westy and Derozan also have weak jumpers, lack of threat from 3 and they can still put up big digits. At worse MJ could put scoring numbers way easier then them.

If Harden and Westy could be triple double guys so easily, I don't see how Jordan couldn't if he wanted to. Jordan was a multi dimensional threat early in his career too. These guys weren't the best ball handlers, or passers when they came into the league. They just put in the work, with MJ's world class drive and work ethic, I think he puts in the work and adapts.

Imagine MJ with his iso skills to go along with developing more of a pick n roll game and three point shooting, how are you going to defend that? YOu already said Harden was super difficult to defend, imagine MJ?

MJ just maximized his skills for the specific era, I wouldn't bet against him to do the same as the game evolved. LeBron did the same, he knew during his athletic peak with the way the rules were he could just overwhelm you with his super freak nature. As he aged he also evolved and put in the work on his jumper to help him age gracefully. Bot MJ and Bron are super iq and super work ethic and you can't discount that. LeBron with his physicality would do fine in MJ's era, but he'd have to work on his J and or post game earlier in is career to counter defenses. The best wings back then were more varied in skill-set compared to how James was in is prime.

Hawkeye15
01-09-2019, 12:48 PM
If MJ played the same exact game there's an argument about the new era with zones/easier doubles being harder. MJ is too smart not to adapt though. He'd just work on is 3 ball and pick n roll game to counter. It's all about being adaptable.

You look at Harden, Westy, Derozan type guys that came into the league. None of these guys were that savy or were projected to have these gaudy passing numbers. These guys got coached worked on their games and used the rules to teir advantage. Yet come playoff time when things tighten up, their numbers all drop.

Westy and Derozan also have weak jumpers, lack of threat from 3 and they can still put up big digits. At worse MJ could put scoring numbers way easier then them.

If Harden and Westy could be triple double guys so easily, I don't see how Jordan couldn't if he wanted to. Jordan was a multi dimensional threat early in his career too. These guys weren't the best ball handlers, or passers when they came into the league. They just put in the work, with MJ's world class drive and work ethic, I think he puts in the work and adapts.

Imagine MJ with his iso skills to go along with developing more of a pick n roll game and three point shooting, how are you going to defend that? YOu already said Harden was super difficult to defend, imagine MJ?

MJ just maximized his skills for the specific era, I wouldn't bet against him to do the same as the game evolved. LeBron did the same, he knew during his athletic peak with the way the rules were he could just overwhelm you with his super freak nature. As he aged he also evolved and put in the work on his jumper to help him age gracefully. Bot MJ and Bron are super iq and super work ethic and you can't discount that. LeBron with his physicality would do fine in MJ's era, but he'd have to work on his J and or post game earlier in is career to counter defenses. The best wings back then were more varied in skill-set compared to how James was in is prime.

I am simply commenting on the guys who played man, and what they prefer. Trust me, they prefer to have a guy touch them with no wall behind them, over the opposite. Of course players change to fit eras, etc. Any great would be great anytime.

I just think defense gets associated with physicality way too much. WAY too much. Hell there were WWE hits in the 80's, yet the lane was wide open all the time.

Meh

Heediot
01-09-2019, 01:01 PM
I am simply commenting on the guys who played man, and what they prefer. Trust me, they prefer to have a guy touch them with no wall behind them, over the opposite. Of course players change to fit eras, etc. Any great would be great anytime.

I just think defense gets associated with physicality way too much. WAY too much. Hell there were WWE hits in the 80's, yet the lane was wide open all the time.

Meh

I just think it's a joke how much easier they are making it for ball handlers and for pnr players. They made it worse this year with the freedom of movement stuff for off the ball players too. The amount of adversity they are giving to perimeter offensive players is about money. They want high scoring and a lot of 3 balls. The Warriors have been a huge success, so they want everyone playing like GS or LeBron. The sad part is if everyone played like GS, what made them special to watch loses it's value paradoxically. Although, I don't think any anmunt of rules can duplicate Curry hitting 5 treys in 2-3 minutes as much as they try.

valade16
01-09-2019, 01:15 PM
ask Kobe, or MJ which rules they like better.

A great 1-1 scorer would absolutely prefer the hand check era, over the zone era. Getting by one guy, even if he is physical with you, is easy compared to getting through a wall behind him.

I only say this, because good defense is somehow always confused with physicality. And they don't go hand in hand.

I think MJ and Kobe would prefer this current era to the hand check era considering I have yet to see this wall of defenders behind the initial man defender you're talking about. You can't have a wall of defenders anymore because every offensive player is behind the 3 point line, try that and you get destroyed from 3.

Guards can get to the rim at will nowadays.

GREATNESS ONE
01-09-2019, 03:02 PM
I think MJ and Kobe would prefer this current era to the hand check era considering I have yet to see this wall of defenders behind the initial man defender you're talking about. You can't have a wall of defenders anymore because every offensive player is behind the 3 point line, try that and you get destroyed from 3.

Guards can get to the rim at will nowadays.

:laugh2:

Hawkeye15
01-09-2019, 03:04 PM
I think MJ and Kobe would prefer this current era to the hand check era considering I have yet to see this wall of defenders behind the initial man defender you're talking about. You can't have a wall of defenders anymore because every offensive player is behind the 3 point line, try that and you get destroyed from 3.

Guards can get to the rim at will nowadays.

But those 2 in particular WANT 40 a night, so they would highly prefer the older rules. Kobe has said as much.

The spread offense has only recently become widespread. Expect rule changes in the next 5 years to slow the movement.

The overall point I am trying to make, is physicality is somehow always associated with better defense. And that is b.s. Hell, pace has more to do with better defense than fouling someone hard now and then.

GREATNESS ONE
01-09-2019, 03:07 PM
I donít think we should be able to use the word ďWallĒ I find it highly offensive :p

valade16
01-09-2019, 03:32 PM
But those 2 in particular WANT 40 a night, so they would highly prefer the older rules. Kobe has said as much.

The spread offense has only recently become widespread. Expect rule changes in the next 5 years to slow the movement.

The overall point I am trying to make, is physicality is somehow always associated with better defense. And that is b.s. Hell, pace has more to do with better defense than fouling someone hard now and then.

I agree, physicality is not synonymous with better defense. Even playing street ball, there's a point where guys go from great physical defenders to not knowing how to defend so they make up for it by being overly physical.

I agree, the worst rules to play under were the 00's and the ability to wall off the paint, but offenses countered that by creating all shooting lineups. Nowadays, you simply couldn't stagger or collapse on a driver the way you could in the early 00's because they could pass to any number of wide open 3 point shooters.

I think if Kobe or MJ wanted 40 a night, they'd want to be playing on the 2018 Houston Rockets in place of Harden.

Hawkeye15
01-09-2019, 04:15 PM
I agree, physicality is not synonymous with better defense. Even playing street ball, there's a point where guys go from great physical defenders to not knowing how to defend so they make up for it by being overly physical.

I agree, the worst rules to play under were the 00's and the ability to wall off the paint, but offenses countered that by creating all shooting lineups. Nowadays, you simply couldn't stagger or collapse on a driver the way you could in the early 00's because they could pass to any number of wide open 3 point shooters.

I think if Kobe or MJ wanted 40 a night, they'd want to be playing on the 2018 Houston Rockets in place of Harden.

well, greats are great no matter the era. If it were 2019 and MJ was playing today, his 3 ball would be far better, and he would probably hit 10 FT's a night. If you sent LeBron back to the 80's, he would probably lead the league in points in the paint. Greats, are always great.

The worst time for play of any era is directly after a major rule change, we both agree I am sure. Teams/players eventually adapt, and find loopholes to kill it. Like I said, I expect rule changes at some point in the near future to combat this 3 heavy era.

Heediot
01-09-2019, 04:19 PM
I think they want the high offense, so I have a hard time believing they will create/find rules to counter the 3 ball.

Hawkeye15
01-09-2019, 04:38 PM
I think they want the high offense, so I have a hard time believing they will create/find rules to counter the 3 ball.

you may very well be right. And hell, the league grows in popularity by the year.

Bostonjorge
01-09-2019, 08:23 PM
Drexler
Stockton
Jordan
Zeke
Magic
Payton

off the top of my head, all easily better than Rose ever has been.

Only GOATís where on a level above Rose. Magic and Jordan are that. Everyone else is a all time great player with long peaks. A lot of players get forgotten because the players peak runs out fast. Grant Hill and Bill Walton are 2 great examples. Grant Hill is the best SF of the 90ís over Pippen. Only behind Bird on the 80-99 team. Hill was that good in Detroit.

Rose winning MVP at age 22 is a record that might never be broken. Maybe Zion? Rose was just getting his career started and he was super team Heat biggest roadblock. Rose by himself was scarier on offense then Okc with KD, West and Harden that playoffs. Stockton was a great defender and I know great players find a way but sometimes the guy is to special. Rose was that level of special even if it was for a little bit.

https://youtu.be/wmis7dD57Qs

Hawkeye15
01-10-2019, 10:58 AM
Only GOATís where on a level above Rose. Magic and Jordan are that. Everyone else is a all time great player with long peaks. A lot of players get forgotten because the players peak runs out fast. Grant Hill and Bill Walton are 2 great examples. Grant Hill is the best SF of the 90ís over Pippen. Only behind Bird on the 80-99 team. Hill was that good in Detroit.

Rose winning MVP at age 22 is a record that might never be broken. Maybe Zion? Rose was just getting his career started and he was super team Heat biggest roadblock. Rose by himself was scarier on offense then Okc with KD, West and Harden that playoffs. Stockton was a great defender and I know great players find a way but sometimes the guy is to special. Rose was that level of special even if it was for a little bit.

https://youtu.be/wmis7dD57Qs

Rose wasn't even the best player in the league his MVP year. Look, I never get your angle, stopped trying to figure you out a long time ago. But that is crazy talk putting Rose above any of the guys I mentioned, and I could easily come up with a handful more.

FlashBolt
01-10-2019, 11:53 PM
MJ's own words..

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-04-01-0104010375-story.html

Once you get past your initial defender, it was too late and the ball was already on its way to the basket. MJ knows this. He benefited from it more than anyone else.

ewing
01-10-2019, 11:56 PM
MJ's own words..

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-04-01-0104010375-story.html

Once you get past your initial defender, it was too late and the ball was already on its way to the basket. MJ knows this. He benefited from it more than anyone else.

He was wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 10:40 AM
He was wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no he wasn't. The older rules made it far easier for players who could get to the rim at an elite level to score in the paint. Guys couldn't double until a basketball move was actually made, which many times means it is too late to stop penetration.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 10:41 AM
MJ's own words..

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-04-01-0104010375-story.html

Once you get past your initial defender, it was too late and the ball was already on its way to the basket. MJ knows this. He benefited from it more than anyone else.

Kobe has said the same ****. But what do they know, right?

ewing
01-11-2019, 11:24 AM
Kobe has said the same ****. But what do they know, right?

Not much b/c scoring didn't "plummet" and it certainly teams aren't scoring less now then they were right before 2001

Heediot
01-11-2019, 11:26 AM
no he wasn't. The older rules made it far easier for players who could get to the rim at an elite level to score in the paint. Guys couldn't double until a basketball move was actually made, which many times means it is too late to stop penetration.

the older rules made it easier for offenses to manipulate defense to force a favorable 1 on 1 situation. It wasn't necessarily easier to get to the rim as there were more bodies banging down low. lanes were more clogged. perimeter players also needed mid-range games back then and that was a big part of the game, so guys had to pick and choose when to drive. you had to set up the defender and defense differently vs.now. today driving lanes are way more open because bigs have to step out more to guard their man and or help/switch. the way your setting up defenses is forcing the bigs to make a decision. the best offenses/players prey on defenses by forcing the help and either kicking it out or take advantage up the open lane by going to the hole. offenses now is mostly pnr drive and kick. offenses then in the 90s was more inside out throw it to the post guy and if the match-up is favorable let the guy work and score, if the double comes the big will kick it to the shooter/perimeter player. sometimes you ran the offenses through guys who could attack the rim like clyde and isiah, but even then post game was a solid complement. mj in his prime was the exception of lesser post play by a team. i am sure the amount of drive and kick and drive and hoop rates are higher now, because of pace and space and zones being not true (as you can only camp in there for 3 seconds or less). you could beat slow help back then, but there were guys banging down low almost 24/7 back then, so the help could at times come from either frontcourt position, so the help could come. maybe in the 80s defenses couldn't deal with the pace, but by the early to mid 1990's defenses adjusted and pace of play slowed down. by the late 90's and early 2000s, basketball was getting ugly so they kept tinkering to this day to increase scoring and possibly pace, now they are trying to make it easier to rain threes lol.

of course mj will initially say the rule changes make it harder, but like how defenses adjusted from the 80's to 90's, guys like mj could adapt once they figured out the proper counters and put in the work. i think mj could feast on the harden role or the derozan spurs role. booker role or whatever. thibs countered some of the rule changes, then others countered thibs defense. at this point though they just keep changing the rules to make it more difficult for defenses to game plan (not impossible for much harder).

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 11:28 AM
the older rules made it easier for offenses to manipulate defense to force a favorable 1 on 1 situation. It wasn't necessarily easier to get to the rim as there were more bodies banging down low. lanes were more clogged. perimeter players also needed mid-range games back then and that was a big part of the game, so guys had to pick and choose when to drive. you had to set up the defender and defense differently vs.now. today driving lanes are way more open because bigs have to step out more to guard their man and or help/switch. the way your setting up defenses is forcing the bigs to make a decision. the best offenses/players prey on defenses by forcing the help and either kicking it out or take advantage up the open lane by going to the hole. offenses now is mostly pnr drive and kick. offenses then in the 90s was more inside out throw it to the post guy and if the match-up is favorable let the guy work and score, if the double comes the big will kick it to the shooter/perimeter player. sometimes you ran the offenses through guys who could attack the rim like clyde and isiah, but even then post game was a solid complement. i am sure the amount of drive and kick and drive and hoop rates are higher now, because of pace and space and zones being not true (as you can only camp in there for 3 seconds or less). you could beat slow help back then, but there were guys banging down low almost 24/7 back then, so the help could at times come from either frontcourt position, so the help could come. maybe in the 80s defenses couldn't deal with the pace, but by the early to mid 1990's defenses adjusted and pace of play slowed down. by the late 90's and early 2000s, basketball was getting ugly so they kept tinkering to this day to increase scoring and possibly pace, now they are trying to make it easier to rain threes lol.

of course mj will initially say the rule changes make it harder, but like how defenses adjusted from the 80's to 90's, guys like mj could adapt once they figured out the proper counters and put in the work. i think mj could feast on the harden role or the derozan spurs role. booker role or whatever. thibs countered some of the rule changes, then others countered thibs defense. at this point though they just keep changing the rules to make it more difficult for defenses to game plan (not impossible for much harder).

yes, exactly.

Dude, I really like your posts, but they are SO LONG haha.

The league has adjusted to the zone allowance by simply spreading the floor. So now players can drive easily, but more kicks are happening. In the 2000's, when hand checking was outlawed, and floor spacing wasn't there yet, it was miserable for driving guards to play in. Those were the rules MJ/Kobe HATED. Today they would score a little less, but their assist numbers would skyrocket.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 11:29 AM
Not much b/c scoring didn't "plummet" and it certainly aren't scoring less now then they were right before 2001

distribution of scoring has changed. MJ likes to score. His scoring post 2000-ish would have taken a hit. Hence why he likes the old rules of beating a single guy then having a wide open lane in front of him.

MJ/Kobe like the rules in their individual favor. And the old rules give them that.

ewing
01-11-2019, 11:41 AM
distribution of scoring has changed. MJ likes to score. His scoring post 2000-ish would have taken a hit. Hence why he likes the old rules of beating a single guy then having a wide open lane in front of him.

MJ/Kobe like the rules in their individual favor. And the old rules give them that.

MJ liked to win. He scored 37 a game in year two. 35 a night on 53% from the floor in year 3. If he wanted 40 he'd get it. The only time he might have had trouble averaging 40 is from around 95 to like 2005s when teams were averaging 90. You are right that his assist would sky rocket rocket today b/c his team would just spread the floor and let him drive. I don't see why he couldn't average 40 though. if he wanted 40 he would

ewing
01-11-2019, 11:50 AM
remember back in the day when the NBA was star dominate. Man the zone really changed that.

Heediot
01-11-2019, 11:55 AM
yes, exactly.

Dude, I really like your posts, but they are SO LONG haha.

The league has adjusted to the zone allowance by simply spreading the floor. So now players can drive easily, but more kicks are happening. In the 2000's, when hand checking was outlawed, and floor spacing wasn't there yet, it was miserable for driving guards to play in. Those were the rules MJ/Kobe HATED. Today they would score a little less, but their assist numbers would skyrocket.

lol, most of the time i do short and simple responses. yea it was pretty ugly from the late 90's to mid 2000s. late 90's was when the golden age of 5's started aging/retiring. it was only shaq and duncan after that, that's why lakers and spurs dominated late 90's to mid 2000s. i think when perimeter scorers were forced to carry offenses/scoring during that time it was harder to dominate compared to Shaq and timmy. skilled and dominant bigs were getting less and lesser, so they gradually made it easier and easier for ballhandlers/wings.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 12:36 PM
lol, most of the time i do short and simple responses. yea it was pretty ugly from the late 90's to mid 2000s. late 90's was when the golden age of 5's started aging/retiring. it was only shaq and duncan after that, that's why lakers and spurs dominated late 90's to mid 2000s. i think when perimeter scorers were forced to carry offenses/scoring during that time it was harder to dominate compared to Shaq and timmy. skilled and dominant bigs were getting less and lesser, so they gradually made it easier and easier for ballhandlers/wings.

well, the trench bigs started to go away because they just weren't needed anymore.

You made me think of something-I wonder if the early-mid 2000's, when the age of the dominant PF, was the transformation of the "stretch" big we see today? Meaning, the dominant guys (Tim, KG, Dirk, Webber, McDyess, Sheed, etc), were kinda bigs who could at least face up from 15-18, which we hadn't seen before league wide.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 12:37 PM
remember back in the day when the NBA was star dominate. Man the zone really changed that.

oh for sure dude. It took away 1-1 dominance to some degree for sure.

ewing
01-11-2019, 12:48 PM
oh for sure dude. It took away 1-1 dominance to some degree for sure.

then how come Glennis nets 26 a night going one on one with a spread floor despite having no jump shot and no moves other then a power dribble and a euro step? I mean James Harden actually sets an NBA record for most dribbles taken in a game every night.

JAZZNC
01-11-2019, 12:58 PM
even if we believe the old NBA was tougher, better defense, etc (much of that is myth), as long as the rules are the same for all players, I would lean to the newer guys with the modern rules and the older guys with the older rules. Simply because of the floor spacer/ball handlers versus trench bigs in the respective eras.

Definitely dont disagree. You watch the defenses of the 80s and it's just atrocious even if you could clean a guy out and have it be a common foul. I still miss the days of basketball being a contact sport. Not being able to touch a guy without it being a foul is just aggravating to watch. I know it's mostly nostalgia but I just hate the pussification of the game. I don't think you should be able to clothesline a guy and have it be a regular foul but putting your hand/elbow on a guys hip/side on the way to the basket???? Come on man, let the guys be a little physical. I know it'll never happen but a guy can dream.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 01:00 PM
then how come Glennis nets 26 a night going one on one with a spread floor despite having no jump shot and no moves other then a power dribble and a euro step? I mean James Harden actually sets an NBA record for most dribbles taken in a game every night.

because the league still has star dominance, but it's all wing/guard oriented. I figured you meant across the league/positions.

I mean, Nique couldn't shoot until post injury, and he was a 30 ppg star.

ewing
01-11-2019, 01:21 PM
because the league still has star dominance, but it's all wing/guard oriented. I figured you meant across the league/positions.

I mean, Nique couldn't shoot until post injury, and he was a 30 ppg star.

Werenít we taking about wings? Kobe and Micheal. Guys like Jordan not being able to go one on one

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JAZZNC
01-11-2019, 02:31 PM
because the league still has star dominance, but it's all wing/guard oriented. I figured you meant across the league/positions.

I mean, Nique couldn't shoot until post injury, and he was a 30 ppg star.

Still shocking to me that Nique never developed a shot until he had to. He was serviceable from the outside when he was a fat guy on the Spurs.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 02:55 PM
Still shocking to me that Nique never developed a shot until he had to. He was serviceable from the outside when he was a fat guy on the Spurs.

he had no choice. Just shows he could have been much better if he had taken his overall game more seriously.

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 02:56 PM
Werenít we taking about wings? Kobe and Micheal. Guys like Jordan not being able to go one on one

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ah, my bad. Started on another convo, must have read ya wrong

hidalgo
01-11-2019, 04:15 PM
gotta go with 80-99, because His Airness, Magic, Bird, and the big guys. gotta go with the list Michael Jordan is on

to be fair, Shaq is kinda Equal 90s and 00s (7 great years in the 90s, 7 great years in the 00s). but his last 2 years at LSU were so good he would have been NBA allstar ready for both those years. slight edge goes to 2000s for which era owns him

Hawkeye15
01-11-2019, 05:15 PM
gotta go with 80-99, because His Airness, Magic, Bird, and the big guys. gotta go with the list Michael Jordan is on

to be fair, Shaq is kinda Equal 90s and 00s (7 great years in the 90s, 7 great years in the 00s). but his last 2 years at LSU were so good he would have been NBA allstar ready for both those years. slight edge goes to 2000s for which era owns him

I remember hearing about Shaq, tuned into an LSU game, and my Dad goes, "he doesn't belong in college" haha.

ewing
01-11-2019, 05:31 PM
I remember hearing about Shaq, tuned into an LSU game, and my Dad goes, "he doesn't belong in college" haha.

I remember what really blew me away is when I first saw him play is they showed a picture of him in like 9th grade and he looked NBA size