Which 90's Star would drop the most in the present era?

[No-more-rings]

was not he already clearly worse than robinson and hakeem in his own era ?

Yeah but that doesn’t change my point. I feel if he maintained his real time impact he’d at least have a good case over embiid. I can’t see it if he played today, he didn’t have nearly Embiid’s offensive arsenal.

Ewing was far smarter defensive player though, with higher motor as well.

Well sure. I just see his weak passing as a problem, and I feel like he would get even more jumper happy with today's game and I feel like you'd be wasting his size if he did too much of that.

[penbeast0]

I'd say Barkley because Karl Malone was better guarding people out on the floor and running the floor with better stamina. Both were primarily inside/midrange scorers but a larger part of Barkley's value was his inside scoring and offensive rebounding, both types of offensive impact that are less important in today's offenses. Barkley defensive weaknesses in guarding other forwards on the floor would be magnified and his height would be even more a factor if you tried to use him as a small ball 5, unlike Karl Malone.

Of course, I'd like any of the them and take my chances but hey, I love Montrezl Harrell.

[Mazter]

I would go for Shaq or Stockton. The one because of the diminishing role of post play and the other for the change of the point guard role.

[penbeast0]

I would go for Shaq or Stockton. The one because of the diminishing role of post play and the other for the change of the point guard role.

Stockton less effective? What change in the PG role would nerf Stockton? I could see him as an ironman version of Chris Paul with more emphasis on his 3 point shooting, the same great playmaking and defense, and super health though he doesn't have Paul's turnover economy or younger Paul's scoring volume.

[penbeast0]

Everyone has a vote except Drexler. I guess DeRozan's success in Chicago has people thinking Clyde would work better since I've seen him mentioned in other threads as a guy who would be lessened in today's game.

[falcolombardi]

I would go for Shaq or Stockton. The one because of the diminishing role of post play and the other for the change of the point guard role.

Stockton less effective? What change in the PG role would nerf Stockton? I could see him as an ironman version of Chris Paul with more emphasis on his 3 point shooting, the same great playmaking and defense, and super health though he doesn't have Paul's turnover economy or younger Paul's scoring volume.

Nor handle

[penbeast0]

I would go for Shaq or Stockton. The one because of the diminishing role of post play and the other for the change of the point guard role.

Stockton less effective? What change in the PG role would nerf Stockton? I could see him as an ironman version of Chris Paul with more emphasis on his 3 point shooting, the same great playmaking and defense, and super health though he doesn't have Paul's turnover economy or younger Paul's scoring volume.

Nor handle

With all due respect, Stockton's handle is fine for this or any league and his passing vision may be better than Paul's.

[70sFan]

I would go for Shaq or Stockton. The one because of the diminishing role of post play and the other for the change of the point guard role.

Stockton less effective? What change in the PG role would nerf Stockton? I could see him as an ironman version of Chris Paul with more emphasis on his 3 point shooting, the same great playmaking and defense, and super health though he doesn't have Paul's turnover economy or younger Paul's scoring volume.

Nor handle

I don't think Stockton handles were ever a concern. I mean, he's better ball-handler than Westbrook.

[sp6r=underrated]

He wouldn't drop the most but Hakeem would have a harder adjustment than David Robinson to the switch on everything defense. Modern defenses require players to exercise extreem discipline because if they overplay it leads to chronic 3 pointers/layups.

Hakeem's extreme athleticism helped him a lot but the guy regularly overplayed on defense in an era when ball rotations weren't as advanced.

[70sFan]

He wouldn't drop the most but Hakeem would have a harder adjustment than David Robinson to the switch on everything defense. Modern defenses require players to exercise extreem discipline because if they overplay it leads to chronic 3 pointers/layups.

Hakeem's extreme athleticism helped him a lot but the guy regularly overplayed on defense in an era when ball rotations weren't as advanced.

Hakeem was considerably more mobile and had much better footwork than Robinson. Not to mention that Robinson also gambled a lot on defense back then.

Hakeem's defense translates to any era, without any doubt. He had all the tools to dominate modern game defensively.

[Peregrine01]

I wonder if it's Shaq. I just don't think the plowing into guys is even possible in today's game without getting into chronic foul trouble. Shaq's modus operandi was to basically barrel over guys in the paint and then dunk on 3 guys at the same time.

[penbeast0]

He wouldn't drop the most but Hakeem would have a harder adjustment than David Robinson to the switch on everything defense. Modern defenses require players to exercise extreem discipline because if they overplay it leads to chronic 3 pointers/layups.

Hakeem's extreme athleticism helped him a lot but the guy regularly overplayed on defense in an era when ball rotations weren't as advanced.

Hakeem was considerably more mobile and had much better footwork than Robinson. Not to mention that Robinson also gambled a lot on defense back then.

Hakeem's defense translates to any era, without any doubt. He had all the tools to dominate modern game defensively.

I would say "considerably more mobile . . . than Robinson" is quite the exaggeration. I'd put them in a similar tier in that respect, especially considering DRob's extra length. On the other hand, Hakeem may just be the GOAT in terms of footwork in the post, he was a complete savant in that respect and there he was certainly superior to Robinson.

And yes, both Hakeem and Drob's defense would be Gobert level + today.

[70sFan]

I would say "considerably more mobile . . . than Robinson" is quite the exaggeration. I'd put them in a similar tier in that respect, especially considering DRob's extra length.

I respectfully disagree. Hakeem moved like a guard on perimeter guarding smaller guys. Robinson wasn't nearly as shift on his feet and he had worse lateral movement patterns.

Of course it doesn't mean that he was stiff or that he would struggle today.

[penbeast0]

I would say "considerably more mobile . . . than Robinson" is quite the exaggeration. I'd put them in a similar tier in that respect, especially considering DRob's extra length.

I respectfully disagree. Hakeem moved like a guard on perimeter guarding smaller guys. Robinson wasn't nearly as shift on his feet and he had worse lateral movement patterns.

Of course it doesn't mean that he was stiff or that he would struggle today.

Is "shift on his feet" and "lateral movement patterns" more than just another way of saying his footwork was better?

[70sFan]

I would say "considerably more mobile . . . than Robinson" is quite the exaggeration. I'd put them in a similar tier in that respect, especially considering DRob's extra length.

I respectfully disagree. Hakeem moved like a guard on perimeter guarding smaller guys. Robinson wasn't nearly as shift on his feet and he had worse lateral movement patterns.

Of course it doesn't mean that he was stiff or that he would struggle today.

Is "shift on his feet" and "lateral movement patterns" more than just another way of saying his footwork was better?

Yes, it also includes Robinson's athletic limitations in quick changes of direction. I know that saying about any athletic limitations with regard to such an athletic freak sounds ridiculous, but we're comparing him to another athletic freak.

Olajuwon was simply quicker, more agile and had better footwork. This made him better perimeter defender than Robinson, though it doesn't mean that Admiral sucked in that aspect.

[AussieBuck]

Robinson moved like a C only faster, Dream moved like a **** cat.

[Owly]

Hakeem moved like a guard on perimeter guarding smaller guys.

I think ElGee supported this view (at very least broadly in terms of his impressedness with Olajuwon laterally and above Robinson in this regard).

Honest questions though.
Do we have much of sample on this? (I can say it wasn't regarded important enough - perimeter/smalls coverage, not agility - for the Barry books to mention at the time - from a glance at 3 books between 89 and 94 - from same editions after 93 likes Robinson's ability to cover some 3s and 4s though that might only be say a Charles Smith).

Not to mention that Robinson also gambled a lot on defense back then.

Fwiw, this is actually mentioned in said books as a negative for Hakeem (and not for Robinson). Arguably indirectly with regard to his foul trouble (noted twice though in '94 as an area of improvement from prior struggles) and explicitly once (after '93 "But he reaches and gambles too much" [actually just looked at a 4th, explicitly mentioned again - after '92 "sense that he was 'too sweet' ' on the block, going for it every time ... Result: his man would sneak in for offensive rebounds and ordinary 5s such as Andrew Lang and Sam Bowie had big nights against the Rockets"). Obviously these negatives are noted within a broader, strongly positive review and a AAA defensive grade.

Full disclosure I lean heavily pro-Robinson/anti-Olajuwon in that comp versus the conventional norms, in part because I lean more RS oriented, in part because of Robinson's impact indicators (RS and playoffs and including 94-96 on-off) and I think I lean that his playoff fall was overstated.

Anyway I'm open to being wrong (on the broader issue, I don't a strong stand on perimeter coverage/smalls coverage specifically, more curious) and probably too far off topic and Olajuwon being a better perimeter cover and Robinson perhaps having more impact wouldn't be mutually exclusive (and the comp might depend on the years, Olajuwon being older, so disadvantaged by most comps in the same year), so feel free to ignore this.

[falcolombardi]

Stockton less effective? What change in the PG role would nerf Stockton? I could see him as an ironman version of Chris Paul with more emphasis on his 3 point shooting, the same great playmaking and defense, and super health though he doesn't have Paul's turnover economy or younger Paul's scoring volume.

Nor handle

With all due respect, Stockton's handle is fine for this or any league and his passing vision may be better than Paul's.

i dont mean that srockton handle was not good, just that i dont think it was as good as chris Paul who is one of the fastest and more flúid ball handler i have ever seen

stockton shooting was more than fine for any league too, yet if i was comparing him with Stephen curry i would say curry shooting advantage matters

[penbeast0]

Nor handle

With all due respect, Stockton's handle is fine for this or any league and his passing vision may be better than Paul's.

i dont mean that srockton handle was not good, just that i dont think it was as good as chris Paul who is one of the fastest and more flúid ball handler i have ever seen

stockton shooting was more than fine for any league too, yet if i was comparing him with Stephen curry i would say curry shooting advantage matters

So let's say Paul has an advantage in handles compared to Stockton but that Stockton's are more than good enough to be effective today. I think it's also fair to say that Stockton has the more consistent 3 point shot (about a point and a half higher career despite playing a decade or more earlier) which modern offenses would exploit far more effectively. I still don't see why Stockton would be disadvantaged by modern offenses when a player like Chris Paul (the closest modern equivalent) isn't or do you feel Paul is disadvantaged today as well?

[falcolombardi]

With all due respect, Stockton's handle is fine for this or any league and his passing vision may be better than Paul's.

i dont mean that srockton handle was not good, just that i dont think it was as good as chris Paul who is one of the fastest and more flúid ball handler i have ever seen

stockton shooting was more than fine for any league too, yet if i was comparing him with Stephen curry i would say curry shooting advantage matters

So let's say Paul has an advantage in handles compared to Stockton but that Stockton's are more than good enough to be effective today. I think it's also fair to say that Stockton has the more consistent 3 point shot (about a point and a half higher career despite playing a decade or more earlier) which modern offenses would exploit far more effectively. I still don't see why Stockton would be disadvantaged by modern offenses when a player like Chris Paul (the closest modern equivalent) isn't or do you feel Paul is disadvantaged today as well?

i dont say anythingh about srockton being disadvantaged in the modern era, i said in a comparision with chris Paul, again i am not discrediting stockton or his handle, just thinking chris Paul was better

just pointed out another advantage for chris Paul over srockton since scoring volume and low turnovers were already mentioned

chris Paul is a player with a significatively bigger scoring volume + stronger resiliency in efficiency playoffs

i believe part of that is his great handle and pull up combination that lets him get a good look shot almost at will despite his small size while keeping the ball secure.
somethingh i am less sure about srockton being able of doing at volume

that ability to score is one of the reasons i think chris Paul is a better player since they seem comparable defenders and playmakers as well as shooters

stockton 1988-1998

regular season: .620ts%, Usg% 19%, Tov%21, ast%52 22 points per 100

playoffs: .570ts%, usg%20, tov%19, ast% 49, 21 points per 100

vs chris Paul 2008-2018

regular season: .590ts%, usg%24, tov%13, ast%48, 28 points per 100

playoffs: .580 ts%, usg%26, tov%12, ast%43, 30 points per 100

come the playoffs chris Paul has much higher volume, loses the ball a lot less, has slightly better efficiency despite the much bigger load and barely gives less assists (the turnover gap is a lot more glaring)

and i honestly think a lot of that (more volume without efficiency fall, much less turnovers with a nearly conparable playmaking load) has to do with his handle and ability to get anywhere on the court almost at will and get his shot off easily thanks to that

so i definitely consider chris Paul handle an advantage over stockton that has to be accounted for