Larry Bird was the master of getting in your head.Rodman would dominate with his trash talk. Dude was a disruptor.
Larry Bird was the master of getting in your head.Rodman would dominate with his trash talk. Dude was a disruptor.
Saying his dad was a quarter the player Steph is is absurd and baseless.I agree the games were way rougher. And maybe he doesn't get as many open looks or gets roughed up and misses time, who knows. All I was saying is his Dad who was a quarter of the player Steph is averaged 16ppg in heart of the timeframe we are discussing. He also played 80-90% of games. Steph is a career 43% 3pt shooter.
He would have gotten his, JMHO. It is hard to compare generations but the best of the best would thrive in any era to a degree.
5 on 3?curry, thompson, and durant could probably get to the 95.Mental toughness and defensive prowess is the separator. Curry and the Warriors would not survive the balanced attack from the 95-96 Bulls team.
encourage you to look at the career numbers. Don’t know if dell is even a quarter tbh.Saying his dad was a quarter the player Steph is is absurd and baseless.
Saying his dad was a quarter the player Steph is is absurd and baseless.
Amongst other things: players today are better dribblers, taller, faster, quicker, jump higher, stronger, lower body fat, better nutrition.
Because today's top college athletes stay 1 year so they are in college for 1 year and are 18/19 years old, isn't that an obvious answer? Imagine Anthony Davis or Zion staying for 4 years, it would be nuts. The college game has NEVER seen a player like year 4 Anthony Davis, because today's athletes are so insanely athletic.If today's athletes are that much faster, stronger and better shooters why hasn't it translated to the college game? And if today's players are faster, taller, quicker and can jump higher then why hasn't it translated to the defensive end of the court?
Kentucky averaged 74.5 ppg this past season while our 1982 team averaged 73.3 ppg without a shot clock or three-point shot. and with teams running four corners offenses. It's pretty much the same across NCAA BB.
Same goes for the NFL. Scoring is pretty much the same today as it was in the 90s. What makes the NBA so different? Could it be because of all the rule changes to boost offenses and weaken defenses over the past 20 years?
Which would then add a ton of parity. Kansas having Joel Embiid and Wiggins for 3 years would steer recruits to smaller schools.Because today's top college athletes stay 1 year so they are in college for 1 year and are 18/19 years old, isn't that an obvious answer? Imagine Anthony Davis or Zion staying for 4 years, it would be nuts. The college game has NEVER seen a player like year 4 Anthony Davis, because today's athletes are so insanely athletic.
Because today's top college athletes stay 1 year so they are in college for 1 year and are 18/19 years old, isn't that an obvious answer? Imagine Anthony Davis or Zion staying for 4 years, it would be nuts. The college game has NEVER seen a player like year 4 Anthony Davis, because today's athletes are so insanely athletic.
I’m sure in 25 years the nba will have better players.I can’t wait for you to be older and then here in 25 years people will talk about how Luka has 10% body fat and how he drank beer before playoff games (literally did that last year with the photo circulating around), how the Joker was the best player and was a shlubby guy and has a 5 inch vertical, how Giannis can’t hit a FT after 10 minutes, and how small Steph Curry is, and how horrible those players are and how they wouldn’t compete in “todays NBA” as you chuckle at how silly they are.
I’m sure in 25 years the nba will have better players.
I think we are arguing different things. If you’re referencing Jordan I think he would be dominant today.I’m sure those players I mentioned would be good 25 years later as well. I’m sure Tiger Wiods would be good in 25 years. I’m sure Bo Jackson would be good today, etc. As a matter of fact, people are evolving to be less athletic over time. If you were stuck in a cage with a caveman he would murder you in 5 seconds. We’re becoming smarter but less athletic over time.
With these conversations I always like to look at the 100m dash. Just a simple measure of “athleticism”. Let’s go back 100 years where a guys named Harold Abrahams won with a time of 10.6. At that time:
-They ran on dirt
-Had canvas shoes
-Had a world population with SIX BILLION LESS PEOPLE
-Had limited involvement of Black Athletes
-Had no sports science
-Had minimal if any weight training equipment
-Had NO STEROIDS OR PEDS
-Had no trainers
And this guy that ran it ran it .8 seconds slower that Usain Bolt did when he won the gold. 😂 After all these “amazing athletes and nutrition” we couldnt even get 1 second faster than some British guy 100 years ago. And you guys are saying the best bball player in the world 25 years ago couldn’t possibly be dominant today 😂
It's not "guys" plural ...instead I think it's just one guy who's posting under two different names in this thread to try make it look like it's more than one (notice the similarity in wording/post count).And you guys are saying the best bball player in the world 25 years ago couldn’t possibly be dominant today 😂
MJ would be dominant today, no doubt, he is an outlier. Shaq would too. However, some of the other big plodding centers, Ewing and Alonzo Mourning for example, I don't think would be all-stars today. The game is too spaced out and their elite rim protection wouldn't be as useful when teams are just shooting threes.I’m sure those players I mentioned would be good 25 years later as well. I’m sure Tiger Wiods would be good in 25 years. I’m sure Bo Jackson would be good today, etc. As a matter of fact, people are evolving to be less athletic over time. If you were stuck in a cage with a caveman he would murder you in 5 seconds. We’re becoming smarter but less athletic over time.
With these conversations I always like to look at the 100m dash. Just a simple measure of “athleticism”. Let’s go back 100 years where a guys named Harold Abrahams won with a time of 10.6. At that time:
-They ran on dirt
-Had canvas shoes
-Had a world population with SIX BILLION LESS PEOPLE
-Had limited involvement of Black Athletes
-Had no sports science
-Had minimal if any weight training equipment
-Had NO STEROIDS OR PEDS
-Had no trainers
And this guy that ran it ran it .8 seconds slower that Usain Bolt did when he won the gold. 😂 After all these “amazing athletes and nutrition” we couldnt even get 1 second faster than some British guy 100 years ago. And you guys are saying the best bball player in the world 25 years ago couldn’t possibly be dominant today 😂
Idk about the plodding centers because some teams still get away with having them today.MJ would be dominant today, no doubt, he is an outlier. Shaq would too. However, some of the other big plodding centers, Ewing and Alonzo Mourning for example, I don't think would be all-stars today. The game is too spaced out and their elite rim protection wouldn't be as useful when teams are just shooting threes.
All I'm trying to say is Curry is dominant today, and he would have been even more dominant 30 years ago. Lebron is dominant today, and he would have dominated the league 30 years ago. I truly believe Lebron would beat Bird 1on1 to 10 by a score of like 10-2. Guys are just too big and athletic now.
MJ would be dominant today, no doubt, he is an outlier. Shaq would too. However, some of the other big plodding centers, Ewing and Alonzo Mourning for example, I don't think would be all-stars today. The game is too spaced out and their elite rim protection wouldn't be as useful when teams are just shooting threes.
All I'm trying to say is Curry is dominant today, and he would have been even more dominant 30 years ago. Lebron is dominant today, and he would have dominated the league 30 years ago. I truly believe Lebron would beat Bird 1on1 to 10 by a score of like 10-2. Guys are just too big and athletic now.
Yes, AD and Zion are a generational talent. Still doesn't explain why these guys who can jump high and run fast don't seem to have the ability to play great defense once they enter the NBA. Another trait AD and Zion seem to share is they are injury prone.Because today's top college athletes stay 1 year so they are in college for 1 year and are 18/19 years old, isn't that an obvious answer? Imagine Anthony Davis or Zion staying for 4 years, it would be nuts. The college game has NEVER seen a player like year 4 Anthony Davis, because today's athletes are so insanely athletic.
You just made the case for why todays players are the best. Anytime athletes refine their craft over time they become better.Back in 1995 the best player was probably Hakeem Olajuwon, today the best player is probably Jokovic. I think they’re extremely similar, honestly Hakeem is probably more athletic. I definitely see what you mean about the way they play - but if they grew up now they would be playing a completely different style, shooting 3s in practice, learning more ball handling, etc. If a person was dominant in a sport 20 years ago I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t be extremely good today.
You just made the case for why todays players are the best. Anytime athletes refine their craft over time they become better.
"They would have to become better ball handlers and shoot the ball way better".... Isn't that the nuts n bolts of what the game is?!
It's a much more efficient way of playing today vs 1995 ... One of the reasons, players have became better at the skills of basketball. They got rid of the non sense that isn't a skill of the game ... Hard fouls ect..
The funny part is 30 years from now we will probably see young fans posting about how guys like LeBron, AD and Giannis were bums and couldn't compete with the new modern NBA players and their superior athletes.The argument isn’t todays players are the best - at least that’s not my argument (you can even read the first post I made). What I’m saying is if Hakeem Olijuwon were 25 today he would be a great player. If Bo Jackson, Tiger Woods etc were 25 today, Jesse Owens, Larry Bird. If they were great 30 years ago I think they’d be great today. Humans haven’t evolved to be inherently more athletic in 2 generations.
I may be misinterpreting this post somehow, but what???Jordan couldn’t shoot. Not going to pretend he can all of the sudden shoot lol. Would Wilt have been able to shoot?
The funny part is 30 years from now we will probably see young fans posting about how guys like LeBron, AD and Giannis were bums and couldn't compete with the new modern NBA players and their superior athletes.
Jordan was not a good shooter from 3. So saying if he grew up now it would be different isn’t a fair take IMO. We wouldn’t be saying wilt could 3s if he grew up now.I may be misinterpreting this post somehow, but what???
I know.... I agree with your take...The argument isn’t todays players are the best - at least that’s not my argument (you can even read the first post I made). What I’m saying is if Hakeem Olijuwon were 25 today he would be a great player. If Bo Jackson, Tiger Woods etc were 25 today, Jesse Owens, Larry Bird. If they were great 30 years ago I think they’d be great today. Humans haven’t evolved to be inherently more athletic in 2 generations.
Career 33% but never took more than 3.6 per game. If you think MJ wasn't capable of making himself a better 3 point shooter, then you haven't read or seen much about him. I mean, the dude averaged 30.1 for his career and that's including 23 ppg and 20 ppg his last two years with the Wizards. He clearly didn't need to take 15 3s per game.Jordan was not a good shooter from 3. So saying if he grew up now it would be different isn’t a fair take IMO. We wouldn’t be saying wilt could 3s if he grew up now.
Yeah why would you take 15 3s per game when you shot 32.7% on 1.7 a game in your career (wow that’s way worse than I thought) lol. He couldn’t shoot, it is okay to admit that. If he was capable of shooting better from 3, he would have, he just couldn’t.Career 33% but never took more than 3.6 per game. If you think MJ wasn't capable of making himself a better 3 point shooter, then you haven't read or seen much about him. I mean, the dude averaged 30.1 for his career and that's including 23 ppg and 20 ppg his last two years with the Wizards. He clearly didn't need to take 15 3s per game.
This will be my last engagement with you because you clearly don't understand basketball.Yeah why would you take 15 3s per game when you shot 32.7% on 1.7 a game in your career (wow that’s way worse than I thought) lol. He couldn’t shoot, it is okay to admit that. If he was capable of shooting better from 3, he would have, he just couldn’t.
I don’t do hypotheticals and what if he practiced more on it. He was not a good shooter from deep. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand they didn’t shoot many. When he did, they didn’t go in.I stand by what I said earlier about Barkley’s comments being silly and Curry being an all-time great, but acting like Jordan couldn’t shoot may be taking things too far to the other extreme. He was a known perfectionist, but played in a time when the prevailing wisdom was that shooting the 3 was a novelty that was unreliable at best as a winning strategy, so he probably didn’t focus on it much. I’m not saying he would have been the best pure shooter of all-time or anything, but he probably could have done a little better than 32% if it was something he actually worked at regularly. Context like that is what makes comparing across eras difficult.
Larry Bird and MJ got those numbers against a bunch of plumbers, not very impressive IMO.This will be my last engagement with you because you clearly don't understand basketball.
1. The game was WAY different in the 80s and 90s. NOBODY was shooting 12 3s a game; hell very few TEAMS were.
2. Jordan didn't HAVE to shoot 3s; he shot 50% from the floor and had a career average over 30 ppg, so for you to say "he couldn't shoot" is asinine.
3. Do you consider Larry Bird a "good shooter"? (it's rhetorical, please don't respond or quote me). Bird was a career 38% 3 point shooter, on 1.9 att per game. WIDELY considered as a great shooter, some would say among the best of all time. THE GAME WAS DIFFERENT AS IT PERTAINS TO THREE POINT SHOOTING....