90s/2000s player that would be better in todays game

[picc]

So from what I gather from this thread, the answer to this question is about 75% of the players from back then?

[Chronz]

How no one has mentioned AI yet is insanity

dude with that kind of spacing would dominate

To be fair, we saw him at 29 and 30 in 05 and 06 with Iggy and Korver spacing for him and a stretch big in what remained of Webber. It wouldn't likely look a LOT different than that.

He was more athletic in his youth, he exploded immediately after the rule changes.

[dc]

So from what I gather from this thread, the answer to this question is about 75% of the players from back then?

People seem to be picking any passable offensive player who could shoot a 3 as some guy who would be automatically enhanced by today's game. There doesn't seem to be any regard to how that player might fare on the defensive side of things that require more and more switching against offenses that love to matchup hunt.

[tsherkin]

He was more athletic in his youth, he exploded immediately after the rule changes.

Sure, at 22 he had a bit more explosion than he had a little later, though I don't think that would have mattered too much. His draw rate was humongous, he was just limited by his relatively tepid jumper and his finishing rate in close (which wouldn't be that much better today). There's a limit to how much would change. I think him not taking 27 FGA/g would be the biggest boon to him, because no team would really let him shoot that much, so he'd be closer to league average efficiency in more years of his career had he played today.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf

Look how good Seth Curry is. Mahmoud would be way better

[canada_dry]

Steve nash

Mark price

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[BudTugly]

Stockton would generate unlimited techs in todays game he was so nasty

[SelfishPlayer]

So from what I gather from this thread, the answer to this question is about 75% of the players from back then?

People seem to be picking any passable offensive player who could shoot a 3 as some guy who would be automatically enhanced by today's game. There doesn't seem to be any regard to how that player might fare on the defensive side of things that require more and more switching against offenses that love to matchup hunt.

Defenders were better before the rule changes to enhance offense. So your typical player from the 90s and early 2000s wouldn't have more trouble defending today. Why would they? Their great defense is what caused the league to make the game easier on offense by changing rules. The reason why there is so much switching today is because isolation scorers have become weaker. Iverson just simply cooked his matchup every night. Guys these days need help with a screen and a mismatch. Whoever was guarding Iverson was automatically mismatched, no need for complicating things with a screen, just clear out and let Iverson work.

[og15]

arvydas sabonis, could play the jokic's role

They are different types of players, but Sabonis' main issue for NBA impact was age not era

So from what I gather from this thread, the answer to this question is about 75% of the players from back then?

People seem to be picking any passable offensive player who could shoot a 3 as some guy who would be automatically enhanced by today's game. There doesn't seem to be any regard to how that player might fare on the defensive side of things that require more and more switching against offenses that love to matchup hunt.

Defenders were better before the rule changes to enhance offense. So your typical player from the 90s and early 2000s wouldn't have more trouble defending today. Why would they? Their great defense is what caused the league to make the game easier on offense by changing rules. The reason why there is so much switching today is because isolation scorers have become weaker. Iverson just simply cooked his matchup every night. Guys these days need help with a screen and a mismatch. Whoever was guarding Iverson was automatically mismatched, no need for complicating things with a screen, just clear out and let Iverson work.

Defenders weren't better, players didn't just forget how to play defense. You're answering your own question, you're saying rules made it easier to score, then also saying defenders were better, wait, but if rules favored the defenders more than now, then of course they would look better lol.

It was easier to defend, it is harder to defend now, which means that inferior defenders were able to survive easier before. Also teams didn't switch hunt and hunt bad matchups to force a player off the floor, that simply wasn't a consistent thing. There was a lot more about "guarding your man".

Isolation scorers are not any weaker, the iso ball era was inefficient for a reason, and it's not because everyone was great at isolation scoring or everyone was great at defense. During the iso ball era, teams with shooting and spacing were "oddly" very efficient on offense. Switch hunting happens because it is smart, if there is a player you can abuse, you do it, especially if that player can advantage your opponent in some other way, and you can remove that advantage.

Here's the reality, if Ryan Anderson's career started earlier and ended in 13-14, people would be claiming that Ryan Anderson would be great in this era because he was a big who could shoot. But Ryan Anderson could no longer stay on the floor for extended minutes in this era due to defense.

[SelfishPlayer]

arvydas sabonis, could play the jokic's role

They are different types of players, but Sabonis' main issue for NBA impact was age not era

People seem to be picking any passable offensive player who could shoot a 3 as some guy who would be automatically enhanced by today's game. There doesn't seem to be any regard to how that player might fare on the defensive side of things that require more and more switching against offenses that love to matchup hunt.

Defenders were better before the rule changes to enhance offense. So your typical player from the 90s and early 2000s wouldn't have more trouble defending today. Why would they? Their great defense is what caused the league to make the game easier on offense by changing rules. The reason why there is so much switching today is because isolation scorers have become weaker. Iverson just simply cooked his matchup every night. Guys these days need help with a screen and a mismatch. Whoever was guarding Iverson was automatically mismatched, no need for complicating things with a screen, just clear out and let Iverson work.

Defenders weren't better, players didn't just forget how to play defense. You're answering your own question, you're saying rules made it easier to score, then also saying defenders were better, wait, but if rules favored the defenders more than now, then of course they would look better lol.

It was easier to defend, it is harder to defend now, which means that inferior defenders were able to survive easier before. Also teams didn't switch hunt and hunt bad matchups to force a player off the floor, that simply wasn't a consistent thing. There was a lot more about "guarding your man".

Isolation scorers are not any weaker, the iso ball era was inefficient for a reason, and it's not because everyone was great at isolation scoring or everyone was great at defense. During the iso ball era, teams with shooting and spacing were "oddly" very efficient on offense. Switch hunting happens because it is smart, if there is a player you can abuse, you do it, especially if that player can advantage your opponent in some other way, and you can remove that advantage.

Here's the reality, if Ryan Anderson's career started earlier and ended in 13-14, people would be claiming that Ryan Anderson would be great in this era because he was a big who could shoot. But Ryan Anderson could no longer stay on the floor for extended minutes in this era due to defense.

Efficiency is up because it's easier to score.

[bebopdeluxe]

Iverson

I am shocked that more people have not said AI. Dude got thugged every time he went to the hole. With the new flagrant foul and hand-check rules limiting the amount that teams could beat on him, Iverson would absolutely FEAST in today's game.

[og15]

arvydas sabonis, could play the jokic's role

They are different types of players, but Sabonis' main issue for NBA impact was age not era

Defenders were better before the rule changes to enhance offense. So your typical player from the 90s and early 2000s wouldn't have more trouble defending today. Why would they? Their great defense is what caused the league to make the game easier on offense by changing rules. The reason why there is so much switching today is because isolation scorers have become weaker. Iverson just simply cooked his matchup every night. Guys these days need help with a screen and a mismatch. Whoever was guarding Iverson was automatically mismatched, no need for complicating things with a screen, just clear out and let Iverson work.

Defenders weren't better, players didn't just forget how to play defense. You're answering your own question, you're saying rules made it easier to score, then also saying defenders were better, wait, but if rules favored the defenders more than now, then of course they would look better lol.

It was easier to defend, it is harder to defend now, which means that inferior defenders were able to survive easier before. Also teams didn't switch hunt and hunt bad matchups to force a player off the floor, that simply wasn't a consistent thing. There was a lot more about "guarding your man".

Isolation scorers are not any weaker, the iso ball era was inefficient for a reason, and it's not because everyone was great at isolation scoring or everyone was great at defense. During the iso ball era, teams with shooting and spacing were "oddly" very efficient on offense. Switch hunting happens because it is smart, if there is a player you can abuse, you do it, especially if that player can advantage your opponent in some other way, and you can remove that advantage.

Here's the reality, if Ryan Anderson's career started earlier and ended in 13-14, people would be claiming that Ryan Anderson would be great in this era because he was a big who could shoot. But Ryan Anderson could no longer stay on the floor for extended minutes in this era due to defense.

Efficiency is up because it's easier to score.

Efficiency is up for more than one reason. Yes, being easier to score is one, and it is easier to score because the rules make it harder for defenders, not because defenders were better. There's also different team building, increased 3PT shooting, pace, changes in offensive strategy and shot selection.

...but again, when efficiency was lower, teams that were built similar to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, etc, they were much more efficient. Average Ortg last season was 112.0 Ortg. The Mavericks from 01-02 to 03-04 had an Ortg of 112.2, 110.7 and 112.0 taking 20 three's a game. They were built closer to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, pick and roll.

Other teams had two interior bigs, multiple players who couldn't shoot outside of 15 feet. If the team make up was similar and the shot selection was similar, even with the rules of 01-02 to 03-04, the average Ortg in those seasons would have sky rocketed despite different defensive rules.

It's never beneficial to not look at everything that is a factor, not just the things that support one conclusion.

[og15]

Iverson

I am shocked that more people have not said AI. Dude got thugged every time he went to the hole. With the new flagrant foul and hand-check rules limiting the amount that teams could beat on him, Iverson would absolutely FEAST in today's game.

Iverson would benefit for sure, I think even if he's at or under league average TS% and such, people would be less critical when he's at like 54-55% TS than if he's at 48-50%. We actually saw it though, it was what happened the first time they emphasized the handchecking rules in 04-05.

If you remember the refs were adjusting to the change and everyone was getting everything called. Tons of guys had career highs in 04-05 and 05-06, as well as career highs in FTA/G, then into 06-07 both the refs and probably teams too started to adjust, but a lot of that change was the refs calling it a little less liberally as it was too easy to get a call after the initial rule change.

That was one of the most advantageous times for quick perimeter players, because they really did not let people touch you, yes, more than now. Iverson averaged 30.7 ppg and 33.0 ppg in 42 and 43 mpg. Now, he probably would play 38-39 mpg instead just based on current ways, but he would have better spacing around him, though the rules won't be as touchy as 04-05 and 05-06 were as those seasons were just ridiculous with the perimeter foul calling.

[Fantastik_Goat]

Hersey Hawkins
Shot 40% on 3’s for his career, but never more than 4 attempts a game. He would have had the green light in this era, shooting 7-9 a game.

[SelfishPlayer]

They are different types of players, but Sabonis' main issue for NBA impact was age not era

Defenders weren't better, players didn't just forget how to play defense. You're answering your own question, you're saying rules made it easier to score, then also saying defenders were better, wait, but if rules favored the defenders more than now, then of course they would look better lol.

It was easier to defend, it is harder to defend now, which means that inferior defenders were able to survive easier before. Also teams didn't switch hunt and hunt bad matchups to force a player off the floor, that simply wasn't a consistent thing. There was a lot more about "guarding your man".

Isolation scorers are not any weaker, the iso ball era was inefficient for a reason, and it's not because everyone was great at isolation scoring or everyone was great at defense. During the iso ball era, teams with shooting and spacing were "oddly" very efficient on offense. Switch hunting happens because it is smart, if there is a player you can abuse, you do it, especially if that player can advantage your opponent in some other way, and you can remove that advantage.

Here's the reality, if Ryan Anderson's career started earlier and ended in 13-14, people would be claiming that Ryan Anderson would be great in this era because he was a big who could shoot. But Ryan Anderson could no longer stay on the floor for extended minutes in this era due to defense.

Efficiency is up because it's easier to score.

Efficiency is up for more than one reason. Yes, being easier to score is one, and it is easier to score because the rules make it harder for defenders, not because defenders were better. There's also different team building, increased 3PT shooting, pace, changes in offensive strategy and shot selection.

...but again, when efficiency was lower, teams that were built similar to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, etc, they were much more efficient. Average Ortg last season was 112.0 Ortg. The Mavericks from 01-02 to 03-04 had an Ortg of 112.2, 110.7 and 112.0 taking 20 three's a game. They were built closer to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, pick and roll.

Other teams had two interior bigs, multiple players who couldn't shoot outside of 15 feet. If the team make up was similar and the shot selection was similar, even with the rules of 01-02 to 03-04, the average Ortg in those seasons would have sky rocketed despite different defensive rules.

It's never beneficial to not look at everything that is a factor, not just the things that support one conclusion.

I can't read all of that without you understanding the concept of defenders being worse because they have less tools to utilize. How can defenders possibly be better? With more defensive tools to utilize you now have reason to put defensive specialists all over your roster.

[og15]

Efficiency is up because it's easier to score.

Efficiency is up for more than one reason. Yes, being easier to score is one, and it is easier to score because the rules make it harder for defenders, not because defenders were better. There's also different team building, increased 3PT shooting, pace, changes in offensive strategy and shot selection.

...but again, when efficiency was lower, teams that were built similar to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, etc, they were much more efficient. Average Ortg last season was 112.0 Ortg. The Mavericks from 01-02 to 03-04 had an Ortg of 112.2, 110.7 and 112.0 taking 20 three's a game. They were built closer to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, pick and roll.

Other teams had two interior bigs, multiple players who couldn't shoot outside of 15 feet. If the team make up was similar and the shot selection was similar, even with the rules of 01-02 to 03-04, the average Ortg in those seasons would have sky rocketed despite different defensive rules.

It's never beneficial to not look at everything that is a factor, not just the things that support one conclusion.

I can't read all of that without you understanding the concept of defenders being worse because they have less tools to utilize. How can defenders possibly be better? With more defensive tools to utilize you now have reason to put defensive specialists all over your roster.

There's a difference between defenders being worse and defensive rules making it more difficult for defenders. The individual defenders ability on defense is not worse, their ability to defend as effectively is diminished, sure, but that doesn't make the player a worse defender than a similar player under different rules.

This post is about offensive players, so people are not citing defensive guys, and many are citing offensive players who couldn't defend well or were mediocre when they played anyways.

You're saying past defenders were better in general, so they wouldn't have issue defending now, though the person is talking about people citing guys like Keith Van Horn, etc who weren't on the floor for defense, not Michael Curry, but then you are also saying defenders were better because the rules allowed them to be better. But if those rules are no longer available, they are no longer better if the rules is what made them better.

I disagree that if the rules changed to favor defense more, teams would now stick defensive specialists without offensive ability on their rosters. What you are forgetting is that defensive strategies have also changed, so those types of players become liabilities when teams sag way off them, they won't be able to make it up with just defense. Remember that teams built similar to modern rosters, even without playing at the same pace or shooting as many three's were very efficient offensively against other teams built with defensive specialists during that time.

No one now is playing 3 non or limited range shooters in their starting lineup because of defense even if there was more allowance for physicality on defense.

Defensive rules making it more difficult for defenders means that defenders can't simply fall back on physicality, using hands, etc on defense, they have to rely on moving their feet, defensive IQ, etc, which means some guys who could survive defensively with more favorable defensive rules can't anymore. It's also not just defensive rules, it's also offensive strategy which is aimed at consistently picking on the weak defender. If KVH (just an example) is in my starting lineup at the 4, the opposing team is going to run as many pick and rolls with the man guarding him as the screen setter. KVH would need to have really good offensive impact to justify leaving him on the floor. If he doesn't, KVH would still be effective when he plays, but his minutes would be limited which then makes him worse in this era in terms of overall impact and production.

[165bows]

However, to go with a non-shooter answer, Shaq would be an easy yes. Who the **** is guarding that monster in today’s NBA?

Prime Shaq pretty much changed the perspective on every other big in the league at the time.

[cam24thomas]

Chris Mullin had the best combination of shooting and footwork, really amazing player, would score 25-30ppg in any era, probably 30ppg today.

[Clyde Frazier]

Allan Houston
Michael Finley
Cliff Robinson
Brent Barry
Detlef Schrempf

[SelfishPlayer]

Efficiency is up for more than one reason. Yes, being easier to score is one, and it is easier to score because the rules make it harder for defenders, not because defenders were better. There's also different team building, increased 3PT shooting, pace, changes in offensive strategy and shot selection.

...but again, when efficiency was lower, teams that were built similar to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, etc, they were much more efficient. Average Ortg last season was 112.0 Ortg. The Mavericks from 01-02 to 03-04 had an Ortg of 112.2, 110.7 and 112.0 taking 20 three's a game. They were built closer to how teams are now, shooting, spacing, pick and roll.

Other teams had two interior bigs, multiple players who couldn't shoot outside of 15 feet. If the team make up was similar and the shot selection was similar, even with the rules of 01-02 to 03-04, the average Ortg in those seasons would have sky rocketed despite different defensive rules.

It's never beneficial to not look at everything that is a factor, not just the things that support one conclusion.

I can't read all of that without you understanding the concept of defenders being worse because they have less tools to utilize. How can defenders possibly be better? With more defensive tools to utilize you now have reason to put defensive specialists all over your roster.

There's a difference between defenders being worse and defensive rules making it more difficult for defenders. The individual defenders ability on defense is not worse, their ability to defend as effectively is diminished, sure, but that doesn't make the player a worse defender than a similar player under different rules.

This post is about offensive players, so people are not citing defensive guys, and many are citing offensive players who couldn't defend well or were mediocre when they played anyways.

You're saying past defenders were better in general, so they wouldn't have issue defending now, though the person is talking about people citing guys like Keith Van Horn, etc who weren't on the floor for defense, not Michael Curry, but then you are also saying defenders were better because the rules allowed them to be better. But if those rules are no longer available, they are no longer better if the rules is what made them better.

I disagree that if the rules changed to favor defense more, teams would now stick defensive specialists without offensive ability on their rosters. What you are forgetting is that defensive strategies have also changed, so those types of players become liabilities when teams sag way off them, they won't be able to make it up with just defense. Remember that teams built similar to modern rosters, even without playing at the same pace or shooting as many three's were very efficient offensively against other teams built with defensive specialists during that time.

No one now is playing 3 non or limited range shooters in their starting lineup because of defense even if there was more allowance for physicality on defense.

Defensive rules making it more difficult for defenders means that defenders can't simply fall back on physicality, using hands, etc on defense, they have to rely on moving their feet, defensive IQ, etc, which means some guys who could survive defensively with more favorable defensive rules can't anymore. It's also not just defensive rules, it's also offensive strategy which is aimed at consistently picking on the weak defender. If KVH (just an example) is in my starting lineup at the 4, the opposing team is going to run as many pick and rolls with the man guarding him as the screen setter. KVH would need to have really good offensive impact to justify leaving him on the floor. If he doesn't, KVH would still be effective when he plays, but his minutes would be limited which then makes him worse in this era in terms of overall impact and production.

Emphasis is placed on shooting, defense is deemphasized with three second paint rule. Guys today are worse defensively. Some of the best defenders don't get a shot at the NBA these days.