Players who would perform better today than when they played

[Jiminy Glick]

Rodman

[TheSheriff]

Raef LaFrentz. He was good defensively (not great mind you), could block shots, and loved shooting threes before it was cool.

[loserX]

Raef LaFrentz. He was good defensively (not great mind you), could block shots, and loved shooting threes before it was cool.

This is exactly who I thought of, believe it or not

Back in those days, being anything like a "stretch 5" was considered almost an insult. Lafrentz would at the very least get a lot more floor time in today's NBA.

[Kabookalu]

Man good call with LaFrentz, completely forgot about that guy. It reminded me of another player from that era who could probably do well today too, Kenyon Martin. Him and Jason Kidd's Nets were the precursor to the current template of the "switch everything" defensive scheme. Actually not sure if he'd excel today compared to back then given he loses his uniqueness as a big man, but who knows, today's landscape fits his abilities better.

[TheSheriff]

Raef LaFrentz. He was good defensively (not great mind you), could block shots, and loved shooting threes before it was cool.

This is exactly who I thought of, believe it or not

Back in those days, being anything like a "stretch 5" was considered almost an insult. Lafrentz would at the very least get a lot more floor time in today's NBA.

I remember when he was on the Celtics, people were driven crazy by Raef hanging out by the three point line. They wanted to get down on the post and bang. Now teams would throw money at him.

[Goudelock]

I'd have to say Ralph Sampson.

From what little we saw of him before injuries imho he just came along at the wrong time in history. There was possibly nobody like him in history prior to his arrival. A 7'4" tall PF that ran like a gazelle could jump through the roof who liked to face up and could handle the ball in the open court leading the break......although he really shouldn't have been doing that too much lol

He was talented but back then there were too many brutes like Karl Malone, Charles Oakley type meat n potatoes types that could easily push him around. Or 7'4 Eaton C who stuffed him and Olajuwon aplenty.

And then Mchale who flat out abused him in the 86 Finals.

Pre injury Ralph would be the most athletic big if not player in the NBA and he wouldn't be dealing with those stronger physically imposing players like back then. And bigs more like to face up now vs then. His type of game didn't really fit in during the back to the basket pound it down low game most other PF/C's played then.

I haven't watched a ton of Sampson yet, but would you say that he was the precursor to Kristaps Porzingis in terms of play-style? Both are tall, athletic, and prefer to play on the perimeter rather than banging down low.

[countryboy667]

Guys like Jack Sikma, Sam Perkins, Bill Laimbeer, i.e the original stretch centers. I guess if we're going there i'll throw in Bob McAdoo, too.

Jerry Lucas, he would be sort of Kevin Love lite I would imagine, worse on offense but better defensively

"Kevin Love lite?" LOL...Love isn't fit to carry prime Lucas's gym bag for him. Lucas would be the IDEAL small ball five...smarter, greater range, MUCH better rebounder. at least as good defensively. Most of the people here are too young to remember that Lucas was a once-in-a-generation player like Lebron. Lucas, a legit Hall of Famer, would be BETTER in today's game than he was in his own era.

Others--Rick Barry, Walt Frazier ("d pay a month's salary to watch him frustrate the hell out of Steph Curry) Wilt from 1967 to the end of his career, John Havlicek, Bill Walton, Calvin Murphy. Nate Thurmond, Wesley Unseld, Billy Cunningham, Bill Laimbeer right off the top of my head...

[rebirthoftheM]

Someone recent is Lamar Odom. The small ball/pace era would be perfect for him as LO was always best in this climate. Also, because the defensive 'style' most valued today is the draymond/kg mould, LOs defense would be highly valuable.

Lamar Odom was a lazy piece of (expletive ) that didn't care enough to improve as a player. It had nothing to do with era concerning him imho.

What you've said (although I disagree with this to some extent- its a huge generalization of LO's entire career) does not conflict with what I said. Just by virtue of being in a a small ball-fast pace era, where a tweener such as himself would be more 'normal' and he wouldn't be forced to play against dudes who would overwhelm him on defense, would improve his play almost by default. LO was much better in transition with the ball in his hand, and when he had space to operate than in the half-court (because of his one dimensional driving abilities and weak-ish jump-shot). And his post-game in small stretches today would be a nightmare for opponents.

[bledredwine]

All of the perimeter players would be better and the bigs worse.

[rebirthoftheM]

All of the perimeter players would be better and the bigs worse.

Absolutely. Better spacing and less size in the interior makes it easier to get inside and finishing. Also for perimeter players that create their shots off the dribble, the better spacing allows them to go one on one more frequently.

Last year's finals were really interesting actually. The Warriors were meant to be this elite defensive team, but they seemed helpless in preventing a past-athletic prime version of Lebron going inside at will and finishing (and hell, if you look at Lebron's interior splits last year, the results tell you everything). A lot of this has to do with the lack of size inside (Draymond just doesn't have the size to counter Lebron when he is running at the basket) and also the amazing shooters/spacing the Cavs had. 2010 Lebron would have murdered them even more.

[dhsilv2]

Man good call with LaFrentz, completely forgot about that guy. It reminded me of another player from that era who could probably do well today too, Kenyon Martin. Him and Jason Kidd's Nets were the precursor to the current template of the "switch everything" defensive scheme. Actually not sure if he'd excel today compared to back then given he loses his uniqueness as a big man, but who knows, today's landscape fits his abilities better.

I like martin today. Guys who do best off ball as bigs is a big value add.

[dhsilv2]

All of the perimeter players would be better and the bigs worse.

Absolutely. Better spacing and less size in the interior makes it easier to get inside and finishing. Also for perimeter players that create their shots off the dribble, the better spacing allows them to go one on one more frequently.

Last year's finals were really interesting actually. The Warriors were meant to be this elite defensive team, but they seemed helpless in preventing a past-athletic prime version of Lebron going inside at will and finishing (and hell, if you look at Lebron's interior splits last year, the results tell you everything). A lot of this has to do with the lack of size inside (Draymond just doesn't have the size to counter Lebron when he is running at the basket) and also the amazing shooters/spacing the Cavs had. 2010 Lebron would have murdered them even more.

I feel like last year's warriors were a bit less skilled defensively than the prior year. Am I wrong? I don't feel like checking stats.

But the game is all about scoring more. If you can defend great, but the warriors put you in a place where going big doesn't help you.

[DidUSaySometing]

Interested to see people's thoughts on this. I'm going end up ragging on a few players who I find generally overrated (in their impact at the time) but their skillsets translated in the modern game I think could be leveraged into being real superstars.

Chris Webber. ...

My second choice Allen Iverson. ...

Curious to see your thoughts on overrated players (in their time) that would be better in today's game. Or just players in general.

There is a strong counter on both of these guys that has to do with today's reliance on the 3 ball.

Webber disliked contact; it's the reason his great physical gifts frequently didn't translate into great defense (he would let people get position on him then try to block their shots instead of moving them off their sweet spots) and the reason his foul draw is very low for a player of his size and scoring ability. Today, he might well be even more inclined to call himself a stretch 4 (he refused to play the 5 with the Wizards when they had Juwan Howard and rookie Rasheed Wallace who were more suited for the 4 -- then the ever immature Rasheed refused to play it if Webber wouldn't) and shoot a lot of 3's. The problem is that he really wasn't a very good shooter, under .300 from 3 for his career and under .650 from the FT line. So, he might be even more of an inefficient jump shooter rather than improving. It's far from a sure thing.

Iverson is a similar case. This is a player that refused to change his game of going iso, even 1 on 4, pretty consistently over a number of coaches who tried to get him to play a more balanced team role. It was only Larry Brown who accepted that Iverson wasn't going to change and build a team of defensive players around him who was able to get the best from those Sixer teams. Even Denver pretty much alternated Carmelo iso attacks with Iverson iso attacks, but did it from different sides of the court to improve Iverson's individual numbers because of the attention being paid to Carmelo; and that team was still better with Chauncey Billups. Until/unless Iverson chose to be about the team rather than about being a star, he isn't going to be appreciably better in the modern game and that was a choice he had at the time (though I also blame Katz and the Philly management for backing him against his early coaches and enabling this type of game).

Basically, I think the players that would benefit most from today's game are those with great shooting range who weren't in an era that favored (or even allowed) the 3 like Jerry West or Freddie Brown; also slender slashers who could be physically bullied and who shot well enough to make opponents pay if they sagged off like George Gervin or Bob Dandridge and who would take advantage of the no handcheck rule and less crowded interior of the modern era. Also, possibly slashers with weak handles who would take advantage of the modern refs allowing "gather steps" and "finish steps" so that a LeBron can take 7 steps on a single dribble. Great dunkers of the early days like Baylor, Gus Johnson, Connie Hawkins, etc. would also probably have longer, greater careers with the better shoes and cushioning plus the greater attention by refs to prohibiting undercutting on dunks since almost all the early great dunkers had early major knee injuries.

webber would easily be a top 2 PF and AI is better than all the guards today. the nuggets only 4 more games w/ billups, nene, and birdman

[bledredwine]

All of the perimeter players would be better and the bigs worse.

Absolutely. Better spacing and less size in the interior makes it easier to get inside and finishing. Also for perimeter players that create their shots off the dribble, the better spacing allows them to go one on one more frequently.

Last year's finals were really interesting actually. The Warriors were meant to be this elite defensive team, but they seemed helpless in preventing a past-athletic prime version of Lebron going inside at will and finishing (and hell, if you look at Lebron's interior splits last year, the results tell you everything). A lot of this has to do with the lack of size inside (Draymond just doesn't have the size to counter Lebron when he is running at the basket) and also the amazing shooters/spacing the Cavs had. 2010 Lebron would have murdered them even more.

Well said. I actually have a notepad file somewhere that shows perimeter players and how their numbers shot up on average 5-9 PPG during the years rule changes took affect (no handchecking 3 sec etc). It's staggering. It went from all bigs forwards leading in scoring to all perimeter players and Shaq basically.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I'd have to say Ralph Sampson.

From what little we saw of him before injuries imho he just came along at the wrong time in history. There was possibly nobody like him in history prior to his arrival. A 7'4" tall PF that ran like a gazelle could jump through the roof who liked to face up and could handle the ball in the open court leading the break......although he really shouldn't have been doing that too much lol

He was talented but back then there were too many brutes like Karl Malone, Charles Oakley type meat n potatoes types that could easily push him around. Or 7'4 Eaton C who stuffed him and Olajuwon aplenty.

And then Mchale who flat out abused him in the 86 Finals.

Pre injury Ralph would be the most athletic big if not player in the NBA and he wouldn't be dealing with those stronger physically imposing players like back then. And bigs more like to face up now vs then. His type of game didn't really fit in during the back to the basket pound it down low game most other PF/C's played then.

I haven't watched a ton of Sampson yet, but would you say that he was the precursor to Kristaps Porzingis in terms of play-style? Both are tall, athletic, and prefer to play on the perimeter rather than banging down low.

That'd be an accurate comparison. Ralph was a better more athletic version of him.

Kristaps is a better face up perimeter shooter than Ralph was and probably more polished offensively.

Ralph was a much better shotblocker/rebounder....maybe the best shotblocking PF ever those 3 years he was healthy. But that didn't mean he was a great m2m defender as he'd rack up a lot of fouls trying to swat everything.

Ralph had some low post offence, but he didn't have any sort of low base to back people down. But most of the time he got by on pure athleticism and jumping above everyone with ease with a ridiculous wingspan. Other than Kareem and Mark Eaton I don't remember him ever really being blocked. And in today's game players with that sort of height don't exist anymore so that'd benefit him. He was far more aggressive than Porzingis on the offensive glass too.

Ralph would just drive me crazy sometimes. He'd play like a point forward a la Pippen/G Hill on offence where he'd get the defensive rebound and try to dribble through 2 or 3 guys coming up the court instead of making the outlet pass and would routinely get stripped by some small guard in the open court.

Look at some of his highlights/plays........ he did some real wacky out of control things in the open court for a guy his size that'd just make you shake your head, lol. There was no interior player in history up to that date at that size playing like that.

That was just inexperience and also bad coaching by Bill Fitch who never really reigned that in from him as a Rocket.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I remember when he was on the Celtics, people were driven crazy by Raef hanging out by the three point line. They wanted to get down on the post and bang. Now teams would throw money at him.

This to be honest was a frequent I was having debate at the time in RealGM and, before that, in Usenet. It was about Raef but also Dirk, Van Horn, Sheed etc. Why was it a problem to have a big man shooting from outside, for many people?
I think the main thing is that people couldn't really go over FG% and use that as the only measure of efficiency.
Another thing not to be underrated, before 2002 you didn't need shooters to have good spacing, the illegal defence was doing it for you.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Nobody mentioned Tony Kukoc? A young Spider would be consensus #1 almost every year, and he wouldn't have been requested to bulk up and defend the post the way he was.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Someone recent is Lamar Odom. The small ball/pace era would be perfect for him as LO was always best in this climate. Also, because the defensive 'style' most valued today is the draymond/kg mould, LOs defense would be highly valuable.

Lamar Odom was a lazy piece of (expletive ) that didn't care enough to improve as a player. It had nothing to do with era concerning him imho.

What you've said (although I disagree with this to some extent- its a huge generalization of LO's entire career) does not conflict with what I said. Just by virtue of being in a a small ball-fast pace era, where a tweener such as himself would be more 'normal' and he wouldn't be forced to play against dudes who would overwhelm him on defense, would improve his play almost by default. LO was much better in transition with the ball in his hand, and when he had space to operate than in the half-court (because of his one dimensional driving abilities and weak-ish jump-shot). And his post-game in small stretches today would be a nightmare for opponents.

He was easily imho the most talented player taken in the 99 draft. And with each passing year I kept asking myself: "When is this guy going to take the next step?"

I don't think he ever really evolved or cared enough to improve as a player from the moment he entered the NBA to his last game played and that had nothing to do with era if he had that sort of mindset.

[PurpleGreenGold]

This thread screams Andrei "AK47" Kirilenko! He could out-Draymond Draymond! He could switch onto any defender, run your offense, shoot the 3. His game was perfectly suited for today's game.

[JordansBulls]

Anyone who played in the 90's would be better today because the game has opened up.