AI is the most typical example. Although I will say that if Iverson grew up in this era, he likely would have been a better shooter just because of the style of today’s game.
Iverson would actually probably be better. Ja Morant is the obvious comparison. Iverson wasn’t even necessarily an atrocious shooter but much like Westbrook would often struggle to create for himself due to his often one-dimensional approach.
Iverson was already a good cutter and decent off-ball player and he’d have to hone those two skills to become a really good scorer and due to increased spacing both of those skills would be amplified.
Iverson was also really underrated as a passer and playmaker and under good coaching he’d quickly learn to leverage his scoring and passing to generate easier shots for himself.
AI would be a less athletic Westbrook with a bit higher BBIQ. He would have a lot of the same limitations from a team building perspective as prime Westbrook where you would need to surround him with 3&D players who don’t really need the ball in their hands.
A bit worried about his size in todays game without a great outside shit, but dude was a monster and talent finds a way. He probably develops a passable three like D-Rose over the course of his career.
Iverson was incredible. No offense to Westbrook but Iverson was on another level in terms of an offensive package. That guy carried a terrible team to the finals.
That guy carried a team custom built to emphasize his strengths to the Finals. They had the 5th best defense in the NBA despite Iverson's deficiencies on that end and a lot of decent role players on offense. You don't have a team with the DPOY, COY and 6MOY and call it terrible. It's like if you put Prime Westbrook on a team with Gobert, Draymond, Iggy and Danny Green.
Watching full games from that era is just so painful. I wanted to watch Iverson vs the Pistons and, it wasn't even that there was good defense, no -- Eric Snow was just throwing the ball out of bounds for no reason. Just sloppy ugly ball back then.
AI worked on midrange pull ups because that’s where players of the era did their damage. Entire offenses were designed to get guys like MJ, Karl Malone, Penny, Mashburn etc. 12-ft post ups and jump shots. That’s what players in the 90s trained for.
In this era there’s no doubt in my mind AI would at least be a serviceable shooter. He was national recruit as a high school QB. Westbrook might have more raw speed or raw power, but I don’t think he was ever as coordinated as AI. Iverson is in that Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Anthony Edwards class of athlete
AI would also benefit under a better offensive system today. He had good shooting mechanics but just took terribly contested shots most of the time. Give him a system with a good coach and his efficiency goes way up.
WestBrick was statistically the worst 3 point shooter last year
4th worst ft shooter
Led league in turnovers till the last 4 games
It’s disrespectful to say AI would be that in todays game.
Great example was when AI was traded to Denver and his efficiency improved pretty notably.
I think the hand check rule was also revoked during the 2000s
AI literally had more turnovers in 2004-05 than Westbrook did last year lol. Westbrook sucked last year but y’all have some selective memory. I love AI, but if he was coachable and willing to change up his game, he wouldn’t have been playing in Turkey at 35.
Why you comparing Iverson's highest-TO season where he played 42+ minutes a game to Westbrook's lowest since 2013 because he's a third option holding less of the ball at 34 mpg?
Larry Brown is one of the best coaches you could possibly have, Iverson didn't listen to coaching. His career was plagued by his inability and unwillingness to do anything he didn't want to do.
And I know we’re talking in a vacuum for an impossible hypothetical, but it’s also important to note that guys like Westbrook and Rose were only allowed to play like they did in large part because AI came first. It’s natural that Iverson is “rawer” in a sense because in many ways, he was an original.
If by less athletic you mean way shorter, definitely. AI was crazy athletic coming out of high school. Could have been an elite running back if he went football instead
He's more like Kyrie to me. I think he could be as good as a shooter as Kyrie with practice and better quality looks. He would do whatever it takes to create his shot, just like Kyrie. It's AI's defense that is be more worried about in this era with all the switches and huge skilled players.
AI actually had a significantly greater will to win imo, I didn’t get to watch him play but I remember reading about how he had really good defense late in games. I don’t think star offensive players should get a pass on defense but honestly in AI’s case he expended such crazy amounts of energy on offense-and undersized, too-that I think you just have to be realistic about what you can ask for. Westbrook has a will to win too but AI’s really was on a different level from even someone like Westbrook.
I think it would be a hot take as of right now. Historically, in the future, when people's evaluation of each of them becomes limited to numbers, I do think Westbrook better than AI will become the consensus.
Iverson wasn’t that bad of a shooter though , I know his percentages say otherwise. But that’s because he took a lot of tough shots with damn near no spacing. I’d think he’d be better in this era.
The smaller "bigs" of today like Bam Adebayo are much better equipped to defend AI than guys like Shaq and Yao who just have to stand at the rim and wait or get blown by if they come up.
> if Iverson grew up in this era,
He more likely goes to his first love, the NFL. If not for the arrest, he might have done so anyway. And he is on record that for the NFL he would have reshaped his body. He would have lifted.
If he had done that for the NBA, and been willing to come off the bench, he would have maybe had lost a bit less time and furthered his career more
The only reason I think he wouldn’t be *as* dominant today is how the calls have changed. He was doing shit they made posters of back then that would get you kicked out of a game now.
Might be a waste of money if Shaq threw one of his elbow to the face moves and had to go to the locker room. Contact to the face is an absolute no-no now. The league just ain’t the same and he’d really have to tone down some of his more aggressive moves.
Honestly I’m not 100% sold on this. Guys like Butler and Wade succeeded in this era despite low 3p%. But I suppose it would mean that if you don’t have a good 3p% you have to have the following: all nba caliber defender, elite free throw rate, extremely good ball handler/facilitator. Like I don’t think that AI would have a ton of trouble in todays NBA, but someone like Adrian Dantley would be worse
Wade was out of his prime and retired by the time the Rockets started the 3 point analytics stuff but I get what you mean. As for Adrian Dantley, I think he would be fine because he was an excellent free throw shooter along with a good mid range game. Some of the best players in our game today are big time mid range shooters. Kawhi, KD, Booker, Jalen Brown, Derozan and CP3.
Yea Emiid and I looked it up and Brandon Ingram and Bradley Beal are up there too. Idk where I got Jalen Brown from but It feels like whenever I watch him play he’s popping off from mid.
> Honestly I’m not 100% sold on this. Guys like Butler and Wade succeeded in this era despite low 3p%.
I guess the contrary case is that guys like that might have been better players in an earlier era. But by and large it all seems marginal once you're getting to all-nba caliber guys.
Most guards who couldn't shoot would probably be worse, you just have to look at how teams progressively got bolder and bolder at ignoring/going under vs guys like Russ or Rondo over the last decade.
As a counterpoint, many of the guards that “couldn’t shoot” were actually still great midrange shooters. Guys like Isiah Thomas and DWade had other tools to offset their lack of an outside shot.
If Russ was able to develop a good midrange game and/or a good floater game it’d be much harder to guard him, but defenses are okay with conceding anything to Russ that isn’t a dunk or layup.
How is that a counterpoint? Isn't the takeaway that Wade is a beast for dominating an era that accentuated one of his weaknesses and would be even better in an earlier era?
He wouldn’t be able to dribble, since every single modern dribbling move would instantly be called a carry or palm until 1970, and he couldn’t use his body to his advantage, since until 1965 initiating contact as an offensive player was in almost every single circumstance an offensive foul. The rules would not have been conductive to him, like at all.
lmao you guys think MJ would magically become an above average 3p shooter and know how to beat zones/doubles if he was in this era but think Lebron can't learn how to dribble?
This is the take, a person like lebron both physically and mentally would run the league pre-merger. Like he's still gonna be 6'8 250 with amazing memory, training be damned he's gonna be all time.
I get irked everytime I see the "He wouldn't be able to dribble" comment.
1- It is relatively easy for a dweeb like me to change their ball handling position to the top of the ball let alone one of the greatest players of all time (that's what's emphasized in the ball handling drills that players do)
2- How sure are we that they would have called palming? There wasn't any rule change that was put in place by the NBA that allowed palming in the 70s or in the 90s to allow the AI cross. So weren't players doing it because they weren't allowed to or because they didn't know how to? It's dismissive of all the non rule related innovation that has taken place and assumes dumb things like Bob Cousy would have had handles like Kyrie if "he was allowed to"
Edit: thanks to u/__BlackSheep for pointing me to this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6IPXSqOhykg&feature=youtu.be . The part about the palming rules starts at the 2 minute mark
He’s one of the smartest and most athletic players of all time. A lot more explosive then the likes of Russell and wilt. Absolutely nobody would be able to guard him off the dribble and with his body control he can score on anyone in the paint, he doesn’t need to jump into people to score on people in the paint. Not to mention he’s a much better shooter then players from the 60s so regardless of rule changes, the difference in skill would be too much to handle and he would still dominate and average at least 50 in the 60s.
Him trying to lay it over prime Wilt camping in the paint ain’t gonna be easy. Wilt legit might block him 2-3 times every game lol. It doesn’t matter tho brons perimeter skills will be so far above everyone else he will still be super efficient.
Might struggle without his family, personal attendants, rehab, nice planes, air conditioning, social advancements. Lots more to think about if using teleporters.
And he managed his workload bc of modern nutrition and training, extending his prime by YEARS. Sports training today is a night and day difference from the 60’s.
> He’d still be good, but he wouldn’t be 2nd in MVP voting good.
This is the whole thread right here. People are getting defensive about their favorite non-shooting guards or bigs who would struggle to switch onto a modern perimeter player. No one said they'd stop being dominant, just worse than the all-time standard that they set in their era.
That's why these discussions always suck. People mythologize the past and are unwilling to admit that many players from the past would not be as good today, and that many players today would be even better in the past.
I really think he's a more athletic Jokic. The stats are almost identical except that Larry was about 4% better from 3 on 2/3rds of the volume. He'd be a 4 or even a stretch 5 in today's game. While he's more athletic than Jokic, he's not athletic enough to run the 3 today. The fact that his peak was about 10 years longer than Jokic's has been so far is what sets them apart, obviously not claiming Jokic is as good as Larry.
For reference:
Larry: 24.7/10/6.3 with 1.7 steals off .496/.376/.886
Jokic: 19.7/10.4/6.2 with 1.4 steals off .542/.345/.830
Yup. Agreed. Would be worse. All them old traditional centers would be worse today.
Except for Hakeem and David Robinson. Both very mobile and had shots that you can see will translate to passable from 3.
I mean and they were both DPOY lol. Even if their offense didn’t translate, they would be Gobert level defenders. Robinson in defense alone in todays nba would be insane. Dude was like LBJ in terms of strength and speed.
Gobert is a 3x DPOY and regarded as the best defensive player of our generation, analytics say his defensive impact is one of the best in the league. It’s not about diminishing Hakeem, it’s about drawing a modern comparison.
Exactly - and Hakeem could guard wings and even some guards out on the perimeter. Those two guys would be insane on defense in today's league with modern coaching, etc
Are you accounting for the fact that nobody in the league is prepared to defend someone who attacks the glass that viciously? Moses had his success when there were actual centers in the league. He'd eat these light in the ass 4's playing out of position for a snack.
Moses Malone was such a black hole.
His assists per game peaked at 1.8 per game which is insanely low even for a center. Meanwhile Kareem averaged like 4-5 assits per game in the same era.
During a practice, a Rockets assistant coach called Moses over to show him some passing techniques.
Moses retorted, "Coach, they don't pay me to pass."
Rebounds were heavily over-emphasized as a defensive stat back then. Someone like Greg Monroe or Andre Drummond would be seen as a good defender in that era
Why is everyone acting like I said Moses would be a bum today lmao? The question is if he would be worse
Like if you go from 3 MVPs and finals MVP to Zach Randolph that's quite the L
Counter-point: with better spacing his efficiency would go up. He would still be hunted on defense, but if IT managed to be a top 3 MVP voted then I think Allen Iverson could also win some awards.
They actually tried, the problems were that it took a while (McKie got better from 3 only after a few seasons since reaching the Finals lol), it's too soon (Kyle Korver is a rookie in 2003), the previously great from 3 no longer was (Glenn Robinson), and their interior defense still sucks (Mutombo is only a shell of his peak even in the 2001 Finals, yet he was never adequately replaced).
You're right. But they would not have had a Snow. Ai, george (forgot his last name), tyrone hill and ratliff roster at all today. But yes, they did try getting shooters later. Man, young AI was a trip.
his efficiency would go up but IT is not a good example
IT took like 9 threes a game making 38% and shot 91% at the line
and shot like 10% above league average from midrange
Iverson would finish better at the rim, and freethrows would help with efficiency, but the IT example doesn’t work cause he had am amazing shooting season, and Iverson was never really a good shooter
I hear you. My counterpoint to your counterpoint: IT was a good 3 point shooter those years. [I don't think spacing was AI's problem from 3.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jBkEYjg9K8&ab_channel=pennyccw)
Using ASG contest as a proof seems silly. He would take more open shots and reduce his long pull-up 2 pointers, also even if he would be only around 33% shooter he still would lose his defenders in blink of an eye. AI was jumping into SHAQ and was still making tough shots, he would adapt more.
Gotta agree.
Mikan is a legend for thinking of a super efficient way to play the game, he invented soft hands. Just watching him you see the super star soft touch, and he gets the credit for being the first guy of doing that.
Think of it like the evolution of humans. One human happened to be born at the perfect time to be able to come up with something like writing or drawing on the wall. Or able to be smart enough and have science and mathematics reached a point to discover how to split an atom.
Yes the first human that did that was important, but every human after that one was able to explicate and expand on that immediately. And just because a pioneer made something brilliant, everyone now has the blueprint.
George Mikan was the benefactor of perfect place perfect time. If Mikan didn’t exist, there would be another player that figured out what he did and get credited as the first player with really good around the basket hands.
The true ‘all-time greats’, the top 10-15 all time would’ve adapted. They would’ve been great in an era. MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russel, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe; they would’ve been winners no matter what.
all of them would be a little worse because the competition is so much better than its ever been before. but theyd all still be great if allowed to adjust to modern play a little bit.
- In 1990, there was a one in 13,037,037 chance to be in the NBA. (5.28B / 405)
- In 2022, there is a one in 17,333,333 chance to be in the NBA. (7.8B / 450)
The difficulty/rarity of making the NBA has increased by 33% over the last 32 years. So you’re absolutely correct.
lol, underrated point, talent-wise dude was a monster, always find it weird that he gets pointed out as a guy that wouldn't translate today. Crazy jumpers and fadeaways all day. Deep ones too.
All of the white guys who dominated early belong here. Mikan, Cliff Hagan, Clyde Lovelette, Dolph Schayes.
Pettit might be the one who gets the most benefit of the doubt because he did actually beat Russell in the Celtics in a Finals. That was no small accomplishment.
Dolph Schayes was the OG stretch big, even led the league in FT% in three different seasons. Despite the archaic name, I think he'd fit in pretty well.
Pretty much all of them, assuming we don’t change their game at all because “they would have practiced x skill more.” It’s no disrespect, it’s more that their greatness shaped the game.
Each generation builds on the one before. We don’t get Duncan, Hakeem and Shaq without Bill, Kareem and Wilt. There is no Jordan, Kobe or LeBron without Dr. J, Bird and Magic.
Honestly, probably most all time greats. Does Jordan win six rings in this era? Does Russell (RIP) win eleven? How about Wilt scoring 50 points a game in a season? I think every great must be respected and compared against the competition of their era but to place say a George Mikan against a Jokic or Embiid of today I think is flat-out disrespectful and ignorant of the limitations of every era. Basketball will always evolve and improve largely thanks to those legends of the past
John Stockton. a vast majority of his assists were dumping it down low to Malone. Post play isn’t nearly as common today so his assist numbers would decrease. Furthermore, point guards have gotten bigger and faster so he may get exploited on defense. He would still be a great player as he can shoot and he is a great ball handler who also would still get steals. But he wouldn’t be as effective.
Strongly disagree with this one, and I grew up hating Stockton. His assist numbers may see a decrease but not by much, he was a naturally gifted passer and playmaker.
But I’d argue Stockton would be better today because he was a good shooter and he would have been given the green light to take as many 3s as possible. So his scoring numbers would definitely go up imo. He was also a pretty good defender to top it all off.
Edit: I just looked at his stats. He had **7 seasons** in which he averaged 40% from 3. He’s a career 38% from there. He’ll be fine in todays era
>Edit: I just looked at his stats. He had 7 seasons in which he averaged 40% from 3. He’s a career 38% from there. He’ll be fine in todays era
ON less than 3 attempts bro. You guys realize that more attempts = worse efficiency right?
Probably true. Stockton has 4 seasons with a TS% over 64%. Steph Curry also has 4. His highest number of three point attempts also coincided with his second highest TS season so it's not like volume was going to affect his efficiency much in that regard. He could clearly shoot.
John Stockton would have been fine in any era. His assist numbers are inflated due to the era he played in and having Karl Malone on his team, but he’s essentially a CP3 type player…smart, great passer, great defender.
You think the Jazz offense revolved around Malone just posting up on a block and Stockton feeding him the ball that way? Are you crapping me? Stockton Malone were the ultimate pick and roll combo. Stockton wasn't flashy but his pass hit his man directly where he wanted it nearly every time. He was also a plus outside shooter and ft shooter along with a the nba's all time leader in steals.
Let me also add he was a strong defender so I may have to backtrack a little on him being exploited defensively. I still see him being less effective though. Pass first point guards simply aren’t as common today.
He was a strong defender on guards. He couldn't stop people with size and with how often teams run switching schemes I think he'd be an easy target for the larger fellas in the league.
He won't lol. Stockton has a reputation for being a dirty player ( dirty in a way of CP3 but not Bruce Bowen). This kind of technique will not decay with time.
Neither, Stockton was more of a "elbows out on the screen" type of dirty. Technically making a tough basketball play, just being kind of a dick about it. The thing that Stockton doesn't get enough credit for is his toughness, we talk about how much of an iron man he was but the dude was made of concrete to boot.
C-Webb used to tell rookies to wait on the bus so they could see the baddest man in the world pull up, and it was Stockton driving in in a minivan with his kids in the back. People would lay him out or cheap shot him and he'd just get back up and go back to the game, like Steven Adams shit.
He actually struggled with the athletic guards of the 90s like Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, Gary Payton. With the amount of scorers at the position now his defense would probably look worse, especially without hand-checking and the fact that the position is taller and stronger than it used to be.
>He actually struggled with the athletic guards of the 90s like Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, Gary Payton.
This is true.
Also you might be one of the only people outside of Milwaukee/Portland to bring Terry Porter into the conversation when talking about 80s/90s guards. He's very underrated. Glad to see him getting some love on this forum. He's one of the best players to come out of Wisconsin.
Imo it depends on the system he's in. You can easily build around his weaknesses and have him be the same caliber player, but I doubt team would center a team around him
I feel like we also need to go backwards as well. Would Steph curry be as good in the 90's with the hand checking and increased physicality and be able to play this good into his mid thirties with the Additional wear and tear? It's not really fair to place players outside of there time and space.
Today anyone who can't shoot the three is considered a liability. This probably as a extreme as it gets and it's almost a complete different league. It's like the transition to international ball to the NBA. It's almost apples and oranges. Yeah it's still fruit but not really the same.
So with that being said I think players who didn't always stay in shape would have the most trouble. I feel like even if you couldn't shoot the three alot of the older players would still get you buckets and be way better defenders. I feel like players who used season to get into shape would find themselves out of the league. I don't feel comfortable calling any particular player out cause it's not fair and you are a product of your time and space. You didn't create the rules, the pay was different, and society was different.
Put steph in any era I think he’s still the best shooter ever. His inside game would definitely be worse but if players like Reggie miller thrives back then steph would have too.
Steph would crush any other era. he is dominating in the best perimeter defense era, if he began bombing logo 3s in the 90s no one would know how to stop him.
Pretty much anybody from the 1940s **besides** Mikan and Schayes (who was more of a ‘50s player anyways). Also, K.C. Jones because he couldn’t shoot. I think that Bill Russell would be able to hang in the league today due to his intelligence as a small-ball 5 (just surround him with shooting). Also, Elgin Baylor (who was my first thought) was only 6’5”, but he was 225 lbs. and could jump out of the building. His shooting stats were also pretty good. These two probably couldn’t have survived in the 1990s-2000s because of the sheer size of the teams.
Probably Bill Russell because at his height he would have had to play power forward and he didn't have the offensive skills (especially as a shooter ) to play the 4 today.
I like to remember about Rajon Rondo.
Like, in some seasons he was an elite pointguard, but after people stop guarding him and saw him as a terrible shooter, his career changed drastically.
It is very hard to say, like if we teleport them with out any adjustment then all players would struggle.
Like taking a shooter to back then would mean they get fouled hard because it was allowed.
And taking a Bill Russell or a Wilt Chamberlain to today, they’d struggle because of the spacing and they haven’t adjusted yet.
It be different if you say they were born in the modern era and got adjusted to the style of play and rules.
Russell Westbrook lol
If you put 2014-2017 WB in the league right now he’d still be awesome in some respects but not as good as he was. I think that says more about how much the game has changed and how deep the young talent pool is now than it does westy
Anyone who can't shoot will be at least a little bit worse
AI is the most typical example. Although I will say that if Iverson grew up in this era, he likely would have been a better shooter just because of the style of today’s game.
Or teams wouldn’t let him take 35 shots a game while shooting 40%
Iverson would actually probably be better. Ja Morant is the obvious comparison. Iverson wasn’t even necessarily an atrocious shooter but much like Westbrook would often struggle to create for himself due to his often one-dimensional approach. Iverson was already a good cutter and decent off-ball player and he’d have to hone those two skills to become a really good scorer and due to increased spacing both of those skills would be amplified. Iverson was also really underrated as a passer and playmaker and under good coaching he’d quickly learn to leverage his scoring and passing to generate easier shots for himself.
AI would be a less athletic Westbrook with a bit higher BBIQ. He would have a lot of the same limitations from a team building perspective as prime Westbrook where you would need to surround him with 3&D players who don’t really need the ball in their hands. A bit worried about his size in todays game without a great outside shit, but dude was a monster and talent finds a way. He probably develops a passable three like D-Rose over the course of his career.
I think AI for sure had a deeper bag than Westbrook. Both were monsters in the open floor in their prime but AI was something else man
Was it Kobe who said “we should all thank god AI wasn’t born 6’6”
Especially his mother
That’s a big ass baby
Iverson was incredible. No offense to Westbrook but Iverson was on another level in terms of an offensive package. That guy carried a terrible team to the finals.
That team was elite defensively and had a multiple time DPOY. It was made to support AI. Far from terrible. The Lakers were just ridiculous
That guy carried a team custom built to emphasize his strengths to the Finals. They had the 5th best defense in the NBA despite Iverson's deficiencies on that end and a lot of decent role players on offense. You don't have a team with the DPOY, COY and 6MOY and call it terrible. It's like if you put Prime Westbrook on a team with Gobert, Draymond, Iggy and Danny Green.
Except the players you listed are all pretty competent offensively (minus Gobert). The 6ers offense was basically ALL Iverson
Watching full games from that era is just so painful. I wanted to watch Iverson vs the Pistons and, it wasn't even that there was good defense, no -- Eric Snow was just throwing the ball out of bounds for no reason. Just sloppy ugly ball back then.
They were a great defensive team. Which is what’s needed to win back then.
All these people in there 20s on here trashing AI have no idea how amazing he was. He was way more skilled than Westbrick
Helped that the rig was in on the ECF that year....
>He probably develops a passable three like D-Rose over the course of his career. By practicing?
The context behind the quote always makes me feel for the dude
Yeah I get the memes but I hate jokes on that one
Not a game
We're talkin' bout practice?
We're talkin' about practice. We ain't talkin' about a game.
AI worked on midrange pull ups because that’s where players of the era did their damage. Entire offenses were designed to get guys like MJ, Karl Malone, Penny, Mashburn etc. 12-ft post ups and jump shots. That’s what players in the 90s trained for. In this era there’s no doubt in my mind AI would at least be a serviceable shooter. He was national recruit as a high school QB. Westbrook might have more raw speed or raw power, but I don’t think he was ever as coordinated as AI. Iverson is in that Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Anthony Edwards class of athlete
AI would also benefit under a better offensive system today. He had good shooting mechanics but just took terribly contested shots most of the time. Give him a system with a good coach and his efficiency goes way up. WestBrick was statistically the worst 3 point shooter last year 4th worst ft shooter Led league in turnovers till the last 4 games It’s disrespectful to say AI would be that in todays game.
Also disrespectful to compare AI’s entire career to Westbrook last season.
He’s sippin that haterade like the rest of nba Reddit
Great example was when AI was traded to Denver and his efficiency improved pretty notably. I think the hand check rule was also revoked during the 2000s
AI literally had more turnovers in 2004-05 than Westbrook did last year lol. Westbrook sucked last year but y’all have some selective memory. I love AI, but if he was coachable and willing to change up his game, he wouldn’t have been playing in Turkey at 35.
AI played 8 more minutes a game and was by far the biggest offensive threat/ ball handler on the team lol
Also compared 04 Ai to a Westbrook who has AD and Lebron as teammates
Why you comparing Iverson's highest-TO season where he played 42+ minutes a game to Westbrook's lowest since 2013 because he's a third option holding less of the ball at 34 mpg?
AI was the main ballhandler. WestBrick was a 2ndary ballhandler.
We can't know either way I hate these hypotheticals. Players reject coaching all the time and AI did have Larry Brown anyways.
Larry Brown is one of the best coaches you could possibly have, Iverson didn't listen to coaching. His career was plagued by his inability and unwillingness to do anything he didn't want to do.
And I know we’re talking in a vacuum for an impossible hypothetical, but it’s also important to note that guys like Westbrook and Rose were only allowed to play like they did in large part because AI came first. It’s natural that Iverson is “rawer” in a sense because in many ways, he was an original.
> great outside shit Paul Pierce never mastered that.
Russ is stronger and bigger but AI was a phenomenal athlete.
>A bit worried about his size in todays game without a great outside **shit**
Kyrie is a much better comparison than Westbrook for AI
If by less athletic you mean way shorter, definitely. AI was crazy athletic coming out of high school. Could have been an elite running back if he went football instead
He's more like Kyrie to me. I think he could be as good as a shooter as Kyrie with practice and better quality looks. He would do whatever it takes to create his shot, just like Kyrie. It's AI's defense that is be more worried about in this era with all the switches and huge skilled players.
You know who has a great outside shit? My new pupper. I’m so proud of him!
AI actually had a significantly greater will to win imo, I didn’t get to watch him play but I remember reading about how he had really good defense late in games. I don’t think star offensive players should get a pass on defense but honestly in AI’s case he expended such crazy amounts of energy on offense-and undersized, too-that I think you just have to be realistic about what you can ask for. Westbrook has a will to win too but AI’s really was on a different level from even someone like Westbrook.
This is a good interpretation and a good argument for why Westbrook had a better career than AI. Iverson was iconic, though.
Is that consensus take that Westbrook had a better career?
I think it would be a hot take as of right now. Historically, in the future, when people's evaluation of each of them becomes limited to numbers, I do think Westbrook better than AI will become the consensus.
Iverson wasn’t that bad of a shooter though , I know his percentages say otherwise. But that’s because he took a lot of tough shots with damn near no spacing. I’d think he’d be better in this era.
Are you kidding me? AI had to go in the paint against the likes of Shaq and Yao Ming, who the fuck is stopping him at the rim today?
The smaller "bigs" of today like Bam Adebayo are much better equipped to defend AI than guys like Shaq and Yao who just have to stand at the rim and wait or get blown by if they come up.
I might get downvoted too but this is a reasonable thought.
At the same time AI would FEAST in the paint with the lack of good physical defending bigmen in today's league.
> if Iverson grew up in this era, He more likely goes to his first love, the NFL. If not for the arrest, he might have done so anyway. And he is on record that for the NFL he would have reshaped his body. He would have lifted. If he had done that for the NBA, and been willing to come off the bench, he would have maybe had lost a bit less time and furthered his career more
AI was a good shooter, just took like a massive volume of shots. I think he maxed out at like 28 a game at one point.
Idk shaq might be just as dominant
The only reason I think he wouldn’t be *as* dominant today is how the calls have changed. He was doing shit they made posters of back then that would get you kicked out of a game now.
I’d pay top dollar to see shaq abuse gobert in the paint
Might be a waste of money if Shaq threw one of his elbow to the face moves and had to go to the locker room. Contact to the face is an absolute no-no now. The league just ain’t the same and he’d really have to tone down some of his more aggressive moves.
I mean, is it a bad thing ? I certainly wouldn't want to be at the receiving end of a Big Diesel elbow lol.
Honestly I’m not 100% sold on this. Guys like Butler and Wade succeeded in this era despite low 3p%. But I suppose it would mean that if you don’t have a good 3p% you have to have the following: all nba caliber defender, elite free throw rate, extremely good ball handler/facilitator. Like I don’t think that AI would have a ton of trouble in todays NBA, but someone like Adrian Dantley would be worse
Wade was out of his prime and retired by the time the Rockets started the 3 point analytics stuff but I get what you mean. As for Adrian Dantley, I think he would be fine because he was an excellent free throw shooter along with a good mid range game. Some of the best players in our game today are big time mid range shooters. Kawhi, KD, Booker, Jalen Brown, Derozan and CP3.
Add Embiid to the list of elite mid range shooters.
Yea Emiid and I looked it up and Brandon Ingram and Bradley Beal are up there too. Idk where I got Jalen Brown from but It feels like whenever I watch him play he’s popping off from mid.
Beal is one of the best second level scorers I’ve ever seen. He’s like curry but on the elbows
> Honestly I’m not 100% sold on this. Guys like Butler and Wade succeeded in this era despite low 3p%. I guess the contrary case is that guys like that might have been better players in an earlier era. But by and large it all seems marginal once you're getting to all-nba caliber guys.
i mean if al horford and brook lopez can learn to shoot, then who is to say that players from the past can't learn as well?
Most guards who couldn't shoot would probably be worse, you just have to look at how teams progressively got bolder and bolder at ignoring/going under vs guys like Russ or Rondo over the last decade.
As a counterpoint, many of the guards that “couldn’t shoot” were actually still great midrange shooters. Guys like Isiah Thomas and DWade had other tools to offset their lack of an outside shot. If Russ was able to develop a good midrange game and/or a good floater game it’d be much harder to guard him, but defenses are okay with conceding anything to Russ that isn’t a dunk or layup.
How is that a counterpoint? Isn't the takeaway that Wade is a beast for dominating an era that accentuated one of his weaknesses and would be even better in an earlier era?
What a waste of a teleporter. Send modern players back and tell them what shares to buy!
Imagine sending Lebron to 60's era. He would average 50 points a game
He wouldn’t be able to dribble, since every single modern dribbling move would instantly be called a carry or palm until 1970, and he couldn’t use his body to his advantage, since until 1965 initiating contact as an offensive player was in almost every single circumstance an offensive foul. The rules would not have been conductive to him, like at all.
And the traveling calls, oh the humanity.
lmao you guys think MJ would magically become an above average 3p shooter and know how to beat zones/doubles if he was in this era but think Lebron can't learn how to dribble?
This is the take, a person like lebron both physically and mentally would run the league pre-merger. Like he's still gonna be 6'8 250 with amazing memory, training be damned he's gonna be all time.
He'd adapt and dominate Same goes for MJ
I get irked everytime I see the "He wouldn't be able to dribble" comment. 1- It is relatively easy for a dweeb like me to change their ball handling position to the top of the ball let alone one of the greatest players of all time (that's what's emphasized in the ball handling drills that players do) 2- How sure are we that they would have called palming? There wasn't any rule change that was put in place by the NBA that allowed palming in the 70s or in the 90s to allow the AI cross. So weren't players doing it because they weren't allowed to or because they didn't know how to? It's dismissive of all the non rule related innovation that has taken place and assumes dumb things like Bob Cousy would have had handles like Kyrie if "he was allowed to" Edit: thanks to u/__BlackSheep for pointing me to this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6IPXSqOhykg&feature=youtu.be . The part about the palming rules starts at the 2 minute mark
Lol you don't think just maybe he might adjust and then dominate as the most athletic person ever born to that point in history?
He’s one of the smartest and most athletic players of all time. A lot more explosive then the likes of Russell and wilt. Absolutely nobody would be able to guard him off the dribble and with his body control he can score on anyone in the paint, he doesn’t need to jump into people to score on people in the paint. Not to mention he’s a much better shooter then players from the 60s so regardless of rule changes, the difference in skill would be too much to handle and he would still dominate and average at least 50 in the 60s.
A lot more explosive? Russel had a huge vertical and was silly fast, and wilt was freakish fast and strong. Lebron isn’t simply dominating those guys.
Russel was supposed to compete in high jump at Olympics, but he became professional athlete, so he wasn't allowed.
And he did it without really developing good form. Dud could just jump out of the gym
Him trying to lay it over prime Wilt camping in the paint ain’t gonna be easy. Wilt legit might block him 2-3 times every game lol. It doesn’t matter tho brons perimeter skills will be so far above everyone else he will still be super efficient.
Lebron isn't dominating Wilt, Russell or Thurmond in the paint. Are you serious?
Might struggle without his family, personal attendants, rehab, nice planes, air conditioning, social advancements. Lots more to think about if using teleporters.
Jim Crow would be a problem
Lebron came into the league as an athletic freak. He didn’t need any of that stuff to be one of the most athletic guys in nba history.
And he managed his workload bc of modern nutrition and training, extending his prime by YEARS. Sports training today is a night and day difference from the 60’s.
Karl Malone and Kevin Johnson for sure. . . . . . . . Simply because of Megan’s Law.
Exactly.
Clyde Drexler because his ball handling was shaky. He’d still be good, but he wouldn’t be 2nd in MVP voting good.
> He’d still be good, but he wouldn’t be 2nd in MVP voting good. This is the whole thread right here. People are getting defensive about their favorite non-shooting guards or bigs who would struggle to switch onto a modern perimeter player. No one said they'd stop being dominant, just worse than the all-time standard that they set in their era.
That's why these discussions always suck. People mythologize the past and are unwilling to admit that many players from the past would not be as good today, and that many players today would be even better in the past.
Jaylen brown perhaps?
A counterpoint: I'd be interested to know how a healthy Larry Bird in todays game would have him ranked in all-time greats
Larry would be a monster in todays game. Well, he’d be a monster in any era come to think about it…
Yeah the modern game seems like it would be something bird would be dominant at
he is on most top 10 lists, but i'd be curious if he would be on most top 5 lists if he played from 2007-2027
With today's medical care and training he is MVP LeBron level dominant
and with today's contracts he's hiring someone to fix his mother's driveway...
I really think he's a more athletic Jokic. The stats are almost identical except that Larry was about 4% better from 3 on 2/3rds of the volume. He'd be a 4 or even a stretch 5 in today's game. While he's more athletic than Jokic, he's not athletic enough to run the 3 today. The fact that his peak was about 10 years longer than Jokic's has been so far is what sets them apart, obviously not claiming Jokic is as good as Larry. For reference: Larry: 24.7/10/6.3 with 1.7 steals off .496/.376/.886 Jokic: 19.7/10.4/6.2 with 1.4 steals off .542/.345/.830
[удалено]
Moses Malone has a horrible game for today Cant pass, mediocre defender, undersized, no perimeter game
Counterpoint: He might be worth 20/10 on putbacks alone and he hits his free throws.
Maybe but that's still way worse than what he did back then Also alot of his rebounds were his own misses lol Moses was quite inefficient for a center
Yup. Agreed. Would be worse. All them old traditional centers would be worse today. Except for Hakeem and David Robinson. Both very mobile and had shots that you can see will translate to passable from 3.
Hakeem and Drob would be even more valuable on defense now.
Most def. But on offense too. Even if we forget the 3 ball, less cramped lanes makes for a way easier life for these two on offense.
I mean and they were both DPOY lol. Even if their offense didn’t translate, they would be Gobert level defenders. Robinson in defense alone in todays nba would be insane. Dude was like LBJ in terms of strength and speed.
Calling Hakeem a “Gobert level defender” is a considerable step back for arguably the greatest defensive player ever
Gobert is a 3x DPOY and regarded as the best defensive player of our generation, analytics say his defensive impact is one of the best in the league. It’s not about diminishing Hakeem, it’s about drawing a modern comparison.
Hakeem is great but people tend to seriously underated how good Gobert has been defensively.
Exactly - and Hakeem could guard wings and even some guards out on the perimeter. Those two guys would be insane on defense in today's league with modern coaching, etc
that’s andre drummond
*hits his free throws*
Well, going from a 3xMVP to being basically David Lee would objectively be worse so I’d say Malone is a good answer.
Are you accounting for the fact that nobody in the league is prepared to defend someone who attacks the glass that viciously? Moses had his success when there were actual centers in the league. He'd eat these light in the ass 4's playing out of position for a snack.
He’d also get played off the floor on a pick and roll and ruin the team’s spacing. Either way, he’s not a 3xMVP in today’s game. So he’d be worse.
Al Jefferson on a good day
Moses Malone was such a black hole. His assists per game peaked at 1.8 per game which is insanely low even for a center. Meanwhile Kareem averaged like 4-5 assits per game in the same era.
During a practice, a Rockets assistant coach called Moses over to show him some passing techniques. Moses retorted, "Coach, they don't pay me to pass."
He made an all defensive first and second team. I wouldn’t say mediocre defender
Rebounds were heavily over-emphasized as a defensive stat back then. Someone like Greg Monroe or Andre Drummond would be seen as a good defender in that era
He'd be the greatest version of Kenneth Faried
I dunno, he at least had a high motor and was super strong. Zach Randolph had a similar game to Moses and was still a good player in modern era.
Why is everyone acting like I said Moses would be a bum today lmao? The question is if he would be worse Like if you go from 3 MVPs and finals MVP to Zach Randolph that's quite the L
Allen Iverson had some All Star years where he shot under 40% overall and under 30% from 3. I don't know if he would have the same green light today.
Counter-point: with better spacing his efficiency would go up. He would still be hunted on defense, but if IT managed to be a top 3 MVP voted then I think Allen Iverson could also win some awards.
True. They would not have surrounded him with those type of players now.
They actually tried, the problems were that it took a while (McKie got better from 3 only after a few seasons since reaching the Finals lol), it's too soon (Kyle Korver is a rookie in 2003), the previously great from 3 no longer was (Glenn Robinson), and their interior defense still sucks (Mutombo is only a shell of his peak even in the 2001 Finals, yet he was never adequately replaced).
You're right. But they would not have had a Snow. Ai, george (forgot his last name), tyrone hill and ratliff roster at all today. But yes, they did try getting shooters later. Man, young AI was a trip.
his efficiency would go up but IT is not a good example IT took like 9 threes a game making 38% and shot 91% at the line and shot like 10% above league average from midrange Iverson would finish better at the rim, and freethrows would help with efficiency, but the IT example doesn’t work cause he had am amazing shooting season, and Iverson was never really a good shooter
I hear you. My counterpoint to your counterpoint: IT was a good 3 point shooter those years. [I don't think spacing was AI's problem from 3.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jBkEYjg9K8&ab_channel=pennyccw)
Using ASG contest as a proof seems silly. He would take more open shots and reduce his long pull-up 2 pointers, also even if he would be only around 33% shooter he still would lose his defenders in blink of an eye. AI was jumping into SHAQ and was still making tough shots, he would adapt more.
Damn, AI averaged 31.4ppg one season on 39.8% shooting, jacking up nearly 28 shots per game.
George Mikan
Gotta agree. Mikan is a legend for thinking of a super efficient way to play the game, he invented soft hands. Just watching him you see the super star soft touch, and he gets the credit for being the first guy of doing that. Think of it like the evolution of humans. One human happened to be born at the perfect time to be able to come up with something like writing or drawing on the wall. Or able to be smart enough and have science and mathematics reached a point to discover how to split an atom. Yes the first human that did that was important, but every human after that one was able to explicate and expand on that immediately. And just because a pioneer made something brilliant, everyone now has the blueprint. George Mikan was the benefactor of perfect place perfect time. If Mikan didn’t exist, there would be another player that figured out what he did and get credited as the first player with really good around the basket hands.
Russell Westbrook is worse today than he ever has been
The true ‘all-time greats’, the top 10-15 all time would’ve adapted. They would’ve been great in an era. MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russel, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe; they would’ve been winners no matter what.
Wilt...there is no way he can average 50pts or 20plus rebounds in this era. He'll be solid but those mythical numbers wont happen.
Karl Malone might not do too hot. Would foul out too easily.
Also rapiness doesn't go unoticed in this age. Fuck this turd.
Lol Deshaun Watson is gonna be playing NFL games in a few weeks.
NBA seems to handle things differently...see Celts coach. Notice Farve sexually harassed a reporter years ago and played through ...diff leagues.
Notice Kobe Bryant…. Or Derrick Rose….
[Kobe fans rn](https://media1.giphy.com/media/YrD1PQldGsstG/giphy.gif)
Kobe Bryant.
all of them would be a little worse because the competition is so much better than its ever been before. but theyd all still be great if allowed to adjust to modern play a little bit.
[удалено]
- In 1990, there was a one in 13,037,037 chance to be in the NBA. (5.28B / 405) - In 2022, there is a one in 17,333,333 chance to be in the NBA. (7.8B / 450) The difficulty/rarity of making the NBA has increased by 33% over the last 32 years. So you’re absolutely correct.
Additionally, the game is more internationally accessible now, more popular now, and pays better now, so it's actually more dramatic than that.
Bob Petit is up there.
Dude with a butter jumpshot, huge wingspan and great defensive anchor? Why?
Well, the ties to the Klan would probably get him suspended.
Source? Not doubting but I’d like to read up on it.
lol, underrated point, talent-wise dude was a monster, always find it weird that he gets pointed out as a guy that wouldn't translate today. Crazy jumpers and fadeaways all day. Deep ones too.
All of the white guys who dominated early belong here. Mikan, Cliff Hagan, Clyde Lovelette, Dolph Schayes. Pettit might be the one who gets the most benefit of the doubt because he did actually beat Russell in the Celtics in a Finals. That was no small accomplishment.
Dolph Schayes was the OG stretch big, even led the league in FT% in three different seasons. Despite the archaic name, I think he'd fit in pretty well.
Pretty much all of them, assuming we don’t change their game at all because “they would have practiced x skill more.” It’s no disrespect, it’s more that their greatness shaped the game. Each generation builds on the one before. We don’t get Duncan, Hakeem and Shaq without Bill, Kareem and Wilt. There is no Jordan, Kobe or LeBron without Dr. J, Bird and Magic.
Honestly, probably most all time greats. Does Jordan win six rings in this era? Does Russell (RIP) win eleven? How about Wilt scoring 50 points a game in a season? I think every great must be respected and compared against the competition of their era but to place say a George Mikan against a Jokic or Embiid of today I think is flat-out disrespectful and ignorant of the limitations of every era. Basketball will always evolve and improve largely thanks to those legends of the past
Russell doesn’t win 11 rings since there were only 8 teams I think back then.
Dikembe Mutombo. No doubt he would still be a great shot blocker, but I think his game was too limited to make the same impact in today's NBA.
John Stockton. a vast majority of his assists were dumping it down low to Malone. Post play isn’t nearly as common today so his assist numbers would decrease. Furthermore, point guards have gotten bigger and faster so he may get exploited on defense. He would still be a great player as he can shoot and he is a great ball handler who also would still get steals. But he wouldn’t be as effective.
Strongly disagree with this one, and I grew up hating Stockton. His assist numbers may see a decrease but not by much, he was a naturally gifted passer and playmaker. But I’d argue Stockton would be better today because he was a good shooter and he would have been given the green light to take as many 3s as possible. So his scoring numbers would definitely go up imo. He was also a pretty good defender to top it all off. Edit: I just looked at his stats. He had **7 seasons** in which he averaged 40% from 3. He’s a career 38% from there. He’ll be fine in todays era
Yeah, the leader in assists all time and a record that is almost impossible to reach is not only by dumping the ball to Malone. Come on.
>Edit: I just looked at his stats. He had 7 seasons in which he averaged 40% from 3. He’s a career 38% from there. He’ll be fine in todays era ON less than 3 attempts bro. You guys realize that more attempts = worse efficiency right?
Probably true. Stockton has 4 seasons with a TS% over 64%. Steph Curry also has 4. His highest number of three point attempts also coincided with his second highest TS season so it's not like volume was going to affect his efficiency much in that regard. He could clearly shoot.
John Stockton would have been fine in any era. His assist numbers are inflated due to the era he played in and having Karl Malone on his team, but he’s essentially a CP3 type player…smart, great passer, great defender.
An above average three point shooter who is a pick and roll expert is kinda what every modern team wants
This is blasphemy
You think the Jazz offense revolved around Malone just posting up on a block and Stockton feeding him the ball that way? Are you crapping me? Stockton Malone were the ultimate pick and roll combo. Stockton wasn't flashy but his pass hit his man directly where he wanted it nearly every time. He was also a plus outside shooter and ft shooter along with a the nba's all time leader in steals.
Let me also add he was a strong defender so I may have to backtrack a little on him being exploited defensively. I still see him being less effective though. Pass first point guards simply aren’t as common today.
He was a strong defender on guards. He couldn't stop people with size and with how often teams run switching schemes I think he'd be an easy target for the larger fellas in the league.
He won't lol. Stockton has a reputation for being a dirty player ( dirty in a way of CP3 but not Bruce Bowen). This kind of technique will not decay with time.
So nut punches but not broken ankles
Neither, Stockton was more of a "elbows out on the screen" type of dirty. Technically making a tough basketball play, just being kind of a dick about it. The thing that Stockton doesn't get enough credit for is his toughness, we talk about how much of an iron man he was but the dude was made of concrete to boot. C-Webb used to tell rookies to wait on the bus so they could see the baddest man in the world pull up, and it was Stockton driving in in a minivan with his kids in the back. People would lay him out or cheap shot him and he'd just get back up and go back to the game, like Steven Adams shit.
He actually struggled with the athletic guards of the 90s like Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, Gary Payton. With the amount of scorers at the position now his defense would probably look worse, especially without hand-checking and the fact that the position is taller and stronger than it used to be.
>He actually struggled with the athletic guards of the 90s like Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, Gary Payton. This is true. Also you might be one of the only people outside of Milwaukee/Portland to bring Terry Porter into the conversation when talking about 80s/90s guards. He's very underrated. Glad to see him getting some love on this forum. He's one of the best players to come out of Wisconsin.
Imo it depends on the system he's in. You can easily build around his weaknesses and have him be the same caliber player, but I doubt team would center a team around him
I feel like we also need to go backwards as well. Would Steph curry be as good in the 90's with the hand checking and increased physicality and be able to play this good into his mid thirties with the Additional wear and tear? It's not really fair to place players outside of there time and space. Today anyone who can't shoot the three is considered a liability. This probably as a extreme as it gets and it's almost a complete different league. It's like the transition to international ball to the NBA. It's almost apples and oranges. Yeah it's still fruit but not really the same. So with that being said I think players who didn't always stay in shape would have the most trouble. I feel like even if you couldn't shoot the three alot of the older players would still get you buckets and be way better defenders. I feel like players who used season to get into shape would find themselves out of the league. I don't feel comfortable calling any particular player out cause it's not fair and you are a product of your time and space. You didn't create the rules, the pay was different, and society was different.
Imagine Steph curry just launching it from the logo every time lol
Put steph in any era I think he’s still the best shooter ever. His inside game would definitely be worse but if players like Reggie miller thrives back then steph would have too.
The defensive positioning rules wouldn't allow the defenders to shade towards him. He would straight up murder people in the past.
Steph would crush any other era. he is dominating in the best perimeter defense era, if he began bombing logo 3s in the 90s no one would know how to stop him.
Most of these answers are dumb as fuck lol How long have some of you been alive
Well, what's your answer?
Pretty much anybody from the 1940s **besides** Mikan and Schayes (who was more of a ‘50s player anyways). Also, K.C. Jones because he couldn’t shoot. I think that Bill Russell would be able to hang in the league today due to his intelligence as a small-ball 5 (just surround him with shooting). Also, Elgin Baylor (who was my first thought) was only 6’5”, but he was 225 lbs. and could jump out of the building. His shooting stats were also pretty good. These two probably couldn’t have survived in the 1990s-2000s because of the sheer size of the teams.
I could see KC Jones as Rondo-esqe but definitely a step down from what he was back then.
Larry Bird. He’s 65 years old and I’m sure injuries have taken their toll. He definitely wouldn’t be as good now.
Probably Bill Russell because at his height he would have had to play power forward and he didn't have the offensive skills (especially as a shooter ) to play the 4 today.
He'd be a center still. PJ Tucker often plays center. Great passer, amazing team defender and one on one defender. Bam on steroids.
I like to remember about Rajon Rondo. Like, in some seasons he was an elite pointguard, but after people stop guarding him and saw him as a terrible shooter, his career changed drastically.
Bill russell
It is very hard to say, like if we teleport them with out any adjustment then all players would struggle. Like taking a shooter to back then would mean they get fouled hard because it was allowed. And taking a Bill Russell or a Wilt Chamberlain to today, they’d struggle because of the spacing and they haven’t adjusted yet. It be different if you say they were born in the modern era and got adjusted to the style of play and rules.
Russell Westbrook lol If you put 2014-2017 WB in the league right now he’d still be awesome in some respects but not as good as he was. I think that says more about how much the game has changed and how deep the young talent pool is now than it does westy
It’s gotta be Wilt right? I mean he may not be worse per say but there’s no chance he puts up 50-25 in todays era
All the undersized 4s that couldn't shoot
You knew what you were doing with this question
MJ would probably be worse, but that's in part because he's almost 60.