RealGM

Which player would you bring to the past for maximum impact?

Kevin Durant would be my pick. I feel like LeBron and Giannis would be more like a Wilt Chamberlain pick. A guy would have been a decent-sized wing and also a pretty crazy pick.

Durant would lose a lot of value without a chance to carry the ball. Lack of three point line wouldn't help either.

payton pritchard ofc.i learned that jerry west was just a long-armed payton pritchard so normal armed pritchard would be enough.mvp mvp !!!

Curry, easily. His shooting would shock everyone even if it wasn't as valuable as today, that's for sure.

Jaivl wrote:Curry, easily. His shooting would shock everyone even if it wasn't as valuable as today, that's for sure.

Yeah, I can see shocking factor with Curry. He was shocking even for 2010s fans after all.

With that being said, I don't think he'd be nearly as valuable as he's now.

A bit later than Wilt/Russell, but transporting prime Curry to the first year of the 3pt line would be rather funny.

If I wanted to shock everyone I'd just bring James Harden to the 60's and have him jump into people.

The obvious answer is Steph Curry.

If I wanted to have the best player for the era it'd be Jokic, but to wow the crowds I'd go Curry.

Jaivl wrote:Curry, easily. His shooting would shock everyone even if it wasn't as valuable as today, that's for sure.

Indeed, Curry will be a huge shock. The moment he throws a brick from the half court the head coach might suffer a heart attack

I'd say...hear me out... Big Boban.

Jokic for multiple reasons.

1) This giant, European white guy
2) Extremely talented

Colbinii wrote:Jokic for multiple reasons.

1) This giant, European white guy
2) Extremely talented

That style of play wasn't that uncommon back then. Jokic is better than any of centers playing that way, but I don't think it would be shocking for 1960s fans.

I think the real answer is probably Kyrie. And his basketball playing has nothing to do with it.

Brianna Steward

70sFan wrote:Durant would lose a lot of value without a chance to carry the ball. Lack of three point line wouldn't help either.

Well, let's be real: A LOT of players are going to lose value for not being able to carry (Chris Paul, Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, and well.....really anybody from today carry all the time according to 1960's interpretation).

trex_8063 wrote:

70sFan wrote:Durant would lose a lot of value without a chance to carry the ball. Lack of three point line wouldn't help either.

Well, let's be real: A LOT of players are going to lose value for not being able to carry (Chris Paul, Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, and well.....really anybody from today carry all the time according to 1960's interpretation).

It's true, although I think Durant would suffer more than James or Paul because of that change.

are we sending them in a time machine straight up or having the same player adapt to the older rules first through a long preseason?

70sFan wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

70sFan wrote:Durant would lose a lot of value without a chance to carry the ball. Lack of three point line wouldn't help either.

Well, let's be real: A LOT of players are going to lose value for not being able to carry (Chris Paul, Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, and well.....really anybody from today carry all the time according to 1960's interpretation).

It's true, although I think Durant would suffer more than James or Paul because of that change.

Not sure I agree. Durant's game is more reliant on his skill as a stand up shooter than James who relies more on movement and strength to attack. I see Paul adapting more easily than either but between the two bigger men, I'd guess Durant's adaption is easier.

Maybe it's history, James in his younger days got a lot of referee leeway that less hyped players didn't get in terms of gather steps, extra steps on the finish, and moving his pivot foot and it seemed to be most prevalent in his playoff series which always seemed to start with Cleveland beating Washington in the first round.

I think anyone able to regularly hit a 30+ footer would shock the hell out of everyone in the 60's. Whether they would do it at a 30, 40 or 50% rate wouldn't really matter at the time. Stats were in the stone ages anyways, let alone analytics. It would be shocking either way. Of course you could put Curry in there, just for efficiency. But I think someone over 6'8" doing it would be even more shocking. Maybe someone who is strong and explosive as well. And I don't know if with current is meant the current version of that player, than someone aged 37 would totally creep them out.

penbeast0 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:
Well, let's be real: A LOT of players are going to lose value for not being able to carry (Chris Paul, Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, and well.....really anybody from today carry all the time according to 1960's interpretation).

It's true, although I think Durant would suffer more than James or Paul because of that change.

Not sure I agree. Durant's game is more reliant on his skill as a stand up shooter than James who relies more on movement and strength to attack. I see Paul adapting more easily than either but between the two bigger men, I'd guess Durant's adaption is easier.

Maybe it's history, James in his younger days got a lot of referee leeway that less hyped players didn't get in terms of gather steps, extra steps on the finish, and moving his pivot foot and it seemed to be most prevalent in his playoff series which always seemed to start with Cleveland beating Washington in the first round.

LeBron would adjust his handles to stricter rules, but I can't imagine Durant beating someone off the dribble without carrying the ball. He's simply significantly worse ball-handler from fundamental standpoint.

Without that and three point line, Durant would be simply a great midrange shooter. Elite one of course, but would that be as deadly as James?