RealGM

Basically what i'm asking is: Which top 50 player would not be as good as they were back in their era? What style or part of their game wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was back then?

Here is the list of the top 50:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Nate Archibald

Paul Arizin

Charles Barkley

Rick Barry

Elgin Baylor

Dave Bing

Larry Bird

Wilt Chamberlain

Bob Cousy

Dave Cowens

Billy Cunningham

Dave DeBusschere

Clyde Drexler

Julius Erving

Patrick Ewing

Walt Frazier

George Gervin

Hal Greer

John Havlicek

Elvin Hayes

Magic Johnson

Sam Jones

Michael Jordan

Jerry Lucas

Karl Malone

Moses Malone

Pete Maravich

Kevin McHale

George Mikan

Earl Monroe

Hakeem Olajuwon

Shaquille O'Neal

Robert Parish

Bob Pettit

Scottie Pippen

Willis Reed

Oscar Robertson

David Robinson

Bill Russell

Dolph Schayes

Bill Sharman

John Stockton

Isiah Thomas

Nate Thurmond

Wes Unseld

Bill Walton

Jerry West

Lenny Wilkens

James Worthy

There would be some question marks surrounding Mikan at least since we don't have statistics of him playing with the shot clock while still in his prime. He might adjust and still be great, but at least there is a question mark there since he never got to prove it.

Most of them except the players from the 90's.

First name that jumps at me is: Bob Cousy.

Cousey and Schayes


Mikan is interesting. Hes still 6'10" barefoot and a wide body. If he can adjust his shooting technique and increase his range to 10-15ft (he played in an era where the edge of the paint was closer to basket) he could be effective. Is he 30ppg player? No hes not but he could a starter or good backup.

Well, who from the 40's and 50's would be twice the player they were with modern training and medicine. It's a question that will really go around in circles.

^good point

Main thing is the 24 second clock. Second--change in perimeter shooting. Third--less violent play today.

Cousy is a tough call. I'm, not a fan of Cousy, at least partly because he's kind of a bitter jerk of a person. He wasn't a great defender and he was a lousy shooter. But he was a great ballhandler and passer and a great leader; he was the 1a player to Russell in the early Celtics championships. But Cousy's play/effectiveness/greatness fell off after 1960, and I think 1960 is sort of the watershed year, when basketball really crossed over into modern basketball.

I agree about Dolph Schayes. He was a tweener who took a set shot. He preferred perimeter play. I think he'd be better than his son was--and Danny Schayes was a good basketball player--but Dolph wouldn't be a star or an an all-time great, IMO.

Mikan would be...interesting. I'd see him as a cross of Brad Miller/Jamaal Magloire...probably better than either. Big body, good size. Good passer, solid defender. With the rule changes and reduced fistfights--players got away with much more in the 50s--Mikan would be freed up a little. I wonder if he'd be able to run with the 24 second clock. I think he'd still be a very good player.

Bob Pettit would still be great today. He'd be an All-Star. Dave DeBusschere would be great too; he's a guy everybody would want, a guy whose value exceeded his numbers.

Some older players would, IMO, be better. Sam Jones, Paul Arizin, Lenny Wilkins...less violent play and the three point line would expand the court for them. Jerry West would get the most benefit...not that he needs it.

Patterns wrote:Most of them except the players from the 90's.

Yeah, that guy Jordan that came up in 85 or so would suck today. Guys like Michael Redd or Kevin Martin would school him every day; he just doesn't have the athleticism to play the modern game.

Not sure what made 1990 the magic number for you, is that the year you were born, the year you started watching basketball, or is that the year you think steroids came to dominate the NBA making older players unable to compete?

Charles could have both disadvantages and advantages in today's game.

Obviously, he wouldn't be able to back his man down for the whole shot clock, but he would also play in a less physical era than the one he played in, and he wouldn't need to use his back down post move with the way he could handle the ball and take it in.

Michael Jordan couldn't post up a single guy and score on him as much. They'd zone him up and send all kinds of doubles and what not.

Farsi Man wrote:Michael Jordan couldn't post up a single guy and score on him as much. They'd zone him up and send all kinds of doubles and what not.

Jordan would score at will with the way refs call fouls and the hand check.

DelaneyRudd wrote:Well, who from the 40's and 50's would be twice the player they were with modern training and medicine. It's a question that will really go around in circles.

I dunno, nobody had it back in the day, just like everyone has it today. Back in the day, there were much less talented players than there are today. If you were a rare talent back then, you ruled. If you are a talented player today, it's more common as the overall talent level is much higher and keeps on becoming higher, especially with the internationals starting to come in the last 10 or so years.

big123 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I dunno, nobody had it back in the day, just like everyone has it today. Back in the day, there were much less talented players than there are today. If you were a rare talent back then, you ruled. If you are a talented player today, it's more common as the overall talent level is much higher and keeps on becoming higher, especially with the internationals starting to come in the last 10 or so years.

There was also far fewer teams back in the old days. Wilt didn't play Russell just 4 times a year, he played Russell 8-10 times, possibly even more if the schedules were unbalanced.

Expansion has diluted talent since teams have to take on crappier players to fill their rosters.

TrueLAfan wrote:I'm, not a fan of Cousy, at least partly because he's kind of a bitter jerk of a person.

WTF???????

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



WTF???????

Oh, man. By all ****, Cousy is not a pleasant guy.

--Cousy is hard on Red. He's often criticized Red for not being more of a playbook guy...ignoring the fact that Bob Cousy was the most flamboyant, intuitive, unstructured schoolyard PG of his time...a playbook would have been useless (or actually counterproductive) with him. He's ripped on Red for his tough preseason training regimen. It's like he doesn't understand his own team and why it was successful. Although they came to a truce in later years, Cousy referred and still refers to Red as "Arnold," since he knows Auerbach prefers to be called Red.

--Cousy is a really big jerk about Wilt. ("He [Wilt] used to think he was a great passer because he led the league in assists. Hell, he couldn't shoot, he couldn't pass, and he couldn't dribble..." What??) There are people that think it's bad that Wilt remained upset about how his teams were measured against he Celtics. But he's got some right to it...the Celtics were, by and large, better than Wilt's teams and won by small amounts, and Wilt weas often personally held accountable. Cousy's got no reason and no support and, frankly, sounds like kind of an idiot. A bitter, unhappy idiot. Wilt Chamberlain can't shoot?!

--Cousy couldn't get past his own beliefs. In some ways, this was admirable in his time. He was strongly anti-racist in a time period when racism was still common. But he was incredibly inflexible about his beliefs--which were often wrong, and just often puzzlingly wrong. He felt Jerry Lucas was "unproductive," and traded a 29 year old All-NBA first team player for...Jim King and Bill Turner. You haven't heard of them for a reason. Then he traded Oscar for Flynn Robinson and Charlie Paulk. No reason was given--there's certainly no sensible reason--but one theory was that Cousy was jealous of Oscar, who had just broken several of Cousy's career records. Another theory is that Cincinnati wanted to cut payroll, and Cousy took a percentage of the end-of-year profits so he gutted the team without telling players or fans why. Neither reason speaks well of him at all.

--Dave DeBusschere. I met him. Great guy. He had just gone back to work for the Knicks in management. He was absolutely courteous and respectful about pretty much everybody--a class person in every way. (I talked wiht him for about 10-15 mintues, and it's literally 15 minutes I'll never forget.) But he did say, as diplomatically as he could, that Bob Cousy--who I think had a similar position to his with the Celtics at the time--was a real pain in the a$$ as a person.

Other people I've met involved in basketball have said the same thing. Most are respectful--Cousy certinaly has earned respect for his play. But Cousy is largely considered a bitter, unhappy guy. I understand that Cousy has anxiety disorders and had a tough childhood; I'm sure that's a part of it. And I respect his stand on racial issues. But I still think he's a jerk of a human being.

Well, I guess I was offended because...he reminds me of my family.

Wow... thank was a very insightful post TrueLAfan. Thanks for sharing.