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

[og15]

If that question is about what young excellent defenders are playing amateur basketball these days that will never get a shot at the NBA then that's something that is manipulated at the lowest levels of basketball steering that sort of guy away from defense and more towards making shots. If that question is about defensive specialists that played in the past in the NBA that couldn't get a shot today, then it's a known fact these guys were legislated out of the game. Why ask me for specific names? I didn't create the charge circle. I didn't create defensive three seconds. I didn't eliminate hand checking.

With that said, Bruce Bowen and Raja Bell wouldn't make the NBA today. They were minor league sort of basketball players that bounced around the NBA early in their careers, getting NBA consideration because they flashed unique on ball defense. They both were former Sixers. Their unique on ball defense once established as legitimate and not some kind of "beginner's luck" by the 10 day contract guy, got them jobs. Eventually they developed shot making ability. These days defensive guys have to flat out be able to do more offensively earlier in their careers and/or have a higher pedigree. Raja and Bruce didn't even have impressive measurables. They were naturally great defensive talents whose inner lights/genius were facilitated to grow unfettered without the pressure of being a floor spacer.

The first bolded part is making it seem like defense and shot making are mutually exclusive, they aren't. Why would gearing a guy towards making shots inherently make him a worse defender? That's not really true.

In the current NBA, teams will put a guy like that on their G-League team or at the end of their bench and see if he was develop his shooting there. I don't agree that there would be no opportunity or a player like that to develop into an NBA level role player. I also wouldn't really call Raja a non-shooter pre-NBA.

Finney-Smith was an undrafted player who shot 31% or lower from 3PT his first three seasons and was given time to develop as a shooter. How is he different from a Raja or Bowen?

What about Dort? He was bricking shots as a rookie. Undrafted, got a chance to prove himself, showed his great defense and OKC gave him time to develop his shooting. Those are exactly the type of player you are suggesting wouldn't be able to make it, but they are.

Dort and DFS are both younger than Raja and Bowen were. Neither of them qualifies as defensive specialists or even great at defense. There have always been Mario Elie and John Starks types that will give you a gritty full effort on both ends of the court. Defense is so demphasized today that something called a two way player exists. You're supposed to be a two way player! The normal player today is what used to be called an offensive specialist. Hubert Davis...Hubert Davis would be a starter today and be thought of like Buddy Hield or even better.

Okay, but why is learning to shoot inherently mutually exclusive from being a good defender as you suggested it would be for a younger player?

Raja is a defensive specialist and great at defense, but Dort and DFS don't quality? Come on! I watched all these guys in real time. You're just finding a way to justify every claim you make by side stepping or changing the parameters. They don't count because they were younger, really? So DFS at 23 his first season was just so much younger than Raja at 24 his first season that he doesn't count? Come on my dude. Bowen was 25 when Miami first tried him out, 26 before he started really playing. Let's use Beverley then, or does he not count? He was 24 when Houston picked him up after playing two seasons in Europe.

Two way player did not start in "this era", so when are you defining these eras? No one considers Buddy Heild a balanced player and no one considers him good on defense. Buddy Heild is not the average player when it comes to both offensive and defensive ability. In the 90's and 2000's, there was this wild thing where many players were not adept at both offense and defense at a high level either.

[og15]

Lebron with a group of bench players and non perennial All Stars from the 90s/2000s could win a title in this era the very first season together:

PG Lebron James, John Starks, Dana Barros
SG Eddie Jones, Hubert Davis, Dell Curry
SF Michael Finley, Mario Elie
PF Sean Elliott, Tayshaun Prince, Detlef Schrempf
C Clifford Robinson

Yes, give LeBron a super deep team with multiple guys who are capable All-Stars even if not perennial, multiple guys who can defend, guys who can switch and great spacing, and he wins, WHAT? Really? Yes, if you prepare the perfect team of complimentary players around great players, those teams tend to be able to win.

You have a starting lineup with three guys, Jones, Finley and Elliot who in their best seasons put up 18-19 ppg, 20-22 ppg and 16-17 ppg and who can all shoot and defend and even create. You stick a great versatile defensive SF/PF/C in Uncle Cliff at C, who some only remember for his older days, but at his best was an 18-20 ppg scorer who could defend and wouldn't be shy to shoot from outside. So you give LeBron more balanced scoring than he's ever played with, shooters at every position and length and mobility, a team that can't even be built realistically with the salary cap and that team being able to win means something negative about the era?

Hakeem won with less in the 90's, Duncan won with less in the 00's and Dirk got to the finals with less in the 00's. Young inexperienced LeBron got to the finals with his second best teammate being worse than the 8th man in this team you developed. The Cavs in the 00's would have gone to multiple finals and w,on multiple championships with this roster. LeBron could win with those rosters in past seasons too, let's not get tricked by this "All-Star" label idea and lose sight of the fact that being a great team is being a great team. Eddie Jones for example was a 3*All-Star, 3*All-Defense and 1*All-NBA, that's an excellent teammate.

You put Stark's off the bench and Ewing went to the finals and 7 games with a starting lineup of Starks, Harper, Oakley and Smith, solid, but Starks is now in the bench. You put Tayshaun a defensive stopper and let player for the Pistons championship as this teams what, 7th or 8th man? You have Schrempf, a 17/7/4 super efficient combo forward in his prime, the starting forward and third leading scorer in a finals Seattle team off the bench as your 6th man even though you put him behind Prince in the depth chart, he technically could be starting next to Cliff and would be the primary PF/C off the bench.

I'm not sure what point this is making. You just developed a team the has Starks, Ellie, Prince and Schrempf ALL off the bench as an example of what exactly? Then you grabbed all the great shooters and stuck them in there for the third string, just to stack this team even more in favour of the best players talent. Mario Ellie at 35 started for the championship Spurs and he was a key rotation player for two Houston championships. This is a freaking ridiculous team, what is this example?

[SelfishPlayer]

Lebron with a group of bench players and non perennial All Stars from the 90s/2000s could win a title in this era the very first season together:

PG Lebron James, John Starks, Dana Barros
SG Eddie Jones, Hubert Davis, Dell Curry
SF Michael Finley, Mario Elie
PF Sean Elliott, Tayshaun Prince, Detlef Schrempf
C Clifford Robinson

Yes, give LeBron a super deep team with multiple guys who are capable All-Stars even if not perennial, multiple guys who can defend, guys who can switch and great spacing, and he wins, WHAT? Really? Yes, if you prepare the perfect team of complimentary players around great players, those teams tend to be able to win.

You have a starting lineup with three guys, Jones, Finley and Elliot who in their best seasons put up 18-19 ppg, 20-22 ppg and 16-17 ppg and who can all shoot and defend and even create. You stick a great versatile defensive SF/PF/C in Uncle Cliff at C, who some only remember for his older days, but at his best was an 18-20 ppg scorer who could defend and wouldn't be shy to shoot from outside. So you give LeBron more balanced scoring than he's ever played with, shooters at every position and length and mobility, a team that can't even be built realistically with the salary cap and that team being able to win means something negative about the era?

Hakeem won with less in the 90's, Duncan won with less in the 00's and Dirk got to the finals with less in the 00's. Young inexperienced LeBron got to the finals with his second best teammate being worse than the 8th man in this team you developed. The Cavs in the 00's would have gone to multiple finals and w,on multiple championships with this roster. LeBron could win with those rosters in past seasons too, let's not get tricked by this "All-Star" label idea and lose sight of the fact that being a great team is being a great team. Eddie Jones for example was a 3*All-Star, 3*All-Defense and 1*All-NBA, that's an excellent teammate.

You put Stark's off the bench and Ewing went to the finals and 7 games with a starting lineup of Starks, Harper, Oakley and Smith, solid, but Starks is now in the bench. You put Tayshaun a defensive stopper and let player for the Pistons championship as this teams what, 7th or 8th man? You have Schrempf, a 17/7/4 super efficient combo forward in his prime, the starting forward and third leading scorer in a finals Seattle team off the bench as your 6th man even though you put him behind Prince in the depth chart, he technically could be starting next to Cliff and would be the primary PF/C off the bench.

I'm not sure what point this is making. You just developed a team the has Starks, Ellie, Prince and Schrempf ALL off the bench as an example of what exactly? Then you grabbed all the great shooters and stuck them in there for the third string, just to stack this team even more in favour of the best players talent. Mario Ellie at 35 started for the championship Spurs and he was a key rotation player for two Houston championships. This is a freaking ridiculous team, what is this example?

Why would you presume that roster is comprised of the most ideal version of each player? If you take the most idealized version of each player on the 2021 Heat roster and add Lebron wouldn't we be about at the same place?

[SelfishPlayer]

The first bolded part is making it seem like defense and shot making are mutually exclusive, they aren't. Why would gearing a guy towards making shots inherently make him a worse defender? That's not really true.

In the current NBA, teams will put a guy like that on their G-League team or at the end of their bench and see if he was develop his shooting there. I don't agree that there would be no opportunity or a player like that to develop into an NBA level role player. I also wouldn't really call Raja a non-shooter pre-NBA.

Finney-Smith was an undrafted player who shot 31% or lower from 3PT his first three seasons and was given time to develop as a shooter. How is he different from a Raja or Bowen?

What about Dort? He was bricking shots as a rookie. Undrafted, got a chance to prove himself, showed his great defense and OKC gave him time to develop his shooting. Those are exactly the type of player you are suggesting wouldn't be able to make it, but they are.

Dort and DFS are both younger than Raja and Bowen were. Neither of them qualifies as defensive specialists or even great at defense. There have always been Mario Elie and John Starks types that will give you a gritty full effort on both ends of the court. Defense is so demphasized today that something called a two way player exists. You're supposed to be a two way player! The normal player today is what used to be called an offensive specialist. Hubert Davis...Hubert Davis would be a starter today and be thought of like Buddy Hield or even better.

Okay, but why is learning to shoot inherently mutually exclusive from being a good defender as you suggested it would be for a younger player?

Raja is a defensive specialist and great at defense, but Dort and DFS don't quality? Come on! I watched all these guys in real time. You're just finding a way to justify every claim you make by side stepping or changing the parameters. They don't count because they were younger, really? So DFS at 23 his first season was just so much younger than Raja at 24 his first season that he doesn't count? Come on my dude. Bowen was 25 when Miami first tried him out, 26 before he started really playing. Let's use Beverley then, or does he not count? He was 24 when Houston picked him up after playing two seasons in Europe.

Two way player did not start in "this era", so when are you defining these eras? No one considers Buddy Heild a balanced player and no one considers him good on defense. Buddy Heild is not the average player when it comes to both offensive and defensive ability. In the 90's and 2000's, there was this wild thing where many players were not adept at both offense and defense at a high level either.

"This era" for me started with the rule changes that made individual scoring and efficiency skyrocket around 04-07. Two way player didn't exist before then. If it did please link me to it. I do understand some people mark this era according to the increase in three point shooting.

[Clyde Frazier]

Allan Houston
Michael Finley
Cliff Robinson
Brent Barry
Detlef Schrempf

Robinson and Schrempf would both be playing a lot of small ball 5 in today's game. Schrempf would be good at it though Robinson being a weak rebounder would kind of be a problem.

Finley, Houston and Barry would be good today. Probably a little bit better offensively but people shouldn't all of a sudden be thinking that the modern game would all of a sudden make them look like superstars.

Houston's defense in today's switch heavy schemes would be a problem for his team. The guy was also one of the worst rebounding guards in the league, so it'd be an additional problem if his team played small, which is obviously more common in the modern game. He'd be great shooting the ball, obviously, but his lack of being able to do other things well would be exposed as well.

To be clear I don't think any of them would be "superstars." Houston and Finley doubling their 3PT volume would be a huge benefit to them tho. Houston wasn't an elite athlete but he was a smart player. I think he'd be able to adapt a bit better than you're suggesting. With Barry and Schrempf I was thinking more about positionless basketball and how they'd be a great fit with their versatile skillsets. Robinson was admittedly a little less thought out. It'd be interesting to see him play today tho.

[Jersey Generals]

Chris Mullin comes to mind.

[og15]

Lebron with a group of bench players and non perennial All Stars from the 90s/2000s could win a title in this era the very first season together:

PG Lebron James, John Starks, Dana Barros
SG Eddie Jones, Hubert Davis, Dell Curry
SF Michael Finley, Mario Elie
PF Sean Elliott, Tayshaun Prince, Detlef Schrempf
C Clifford Robinson

Yes, give LeBron a super deep team with multiple guys who are capable All-Stars even if not perennial, multiple guys who can defend, guys who can switch and great spacing, and he wins, WHAT? Really? Yes, if you prepare the perfect team of complimentary players around great players, those teams tend to be able to win.

You have a starting lineup with three guys, Jones, Finley and Elliot who in their best seasons put up 18-19 ppg, 20-22 ppg and 16-17 ppg and who can all shoot and defend and even create. You stick a great versatile defensive SF/PF/C in Uncle Cliff at C, who some only remember for his older days, but at his best was an 18-20 ppg scorer who could defend and wouldn't be shy to shoot from outside. So you give LeBron more balanced scoring than he's ever played with, shooters at every position and length and mobility, a team that can't even be built realistically with the salary cap and that team being able to win means something negative about the era?

Hakeem won with less in the 90's, Duncan won with less in the 00's and Dirk got to the finals with less in the 00's. Young inexperienced LeBron got to the finals with his second best teammate being worse than the 8th man in this team you developed. The Cavs in the 00's would have gone to multiple finals and w,on multiple championships with this roster. LeBron could win with those rosters in past seasons too, let's not get tricked by this "All-Star" label idea and lose sight of the fact that being a great team is being a great team. Eddie Jones for example was a 3*All-Star, 3*All-Defense and 1*All-NBA, that's an excellent teammate.

You put Stark's off the bench and Ewing went to the finals and 7 games with a starting lineup of Starks, Harper, Oakley and Smith, solid, but Starks is now in the bench. You put Tayshaun a defensive stopper and let player for the Pistons championship as this teams what, 7th or 8th man? You have Schrempf, a 17/7/4 super efficient combo forward in his prime, the starting forward and third leading scorer in a finals Seattle team off the bench as your 6th man even though you put him behind Prince in the depth chart, he technically could be starting next to Cliff and would be the primary PF/C off the bench.

I'm not sure what point this is making. You just developed a team the has Starks, Ellie, Prince and Schrempf ALL off the bench as an example of what exactly? Then you grabbed all the great shooters and stuck them in there for the third string, just to stack this team even more in favour of the best players talent. Mario Ellie at 35 started for the championship Spurs and he was a key rotation player for two Houston championships. This is a freaking ridiculous team, what is this example?

Why would you presume that roster is comprised of the most ideal version of each player? If you take the most idealized version of each player on the 2021 Heat roster and add Lebron wouldn't we be about at the same place?

Well you didn't specify what version, what do you want us to assume? If there's no specific then we can't make any judgement because we'll all be choosing different versions of each player. It could literally vary from rookie to washed up version.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Ok my criteria was find guys that never made the all-star game back then who could be all-stars today with more favorable rules.

1. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf - him playing without hand checking being allowed and todays freedom of movement rules would be scary.

2. Walt Williams - Could handle, shoot pass…he’d thrive in this era more than he did. Perfect player for today’s basketball.

3. Robert Horry - his versatility, defense, passing and shooting…another ideal guy for todays game who’d make a serious impact.

4. Brent Barry - Athletic, could handle and shoot the piss out of the ball. Imagine him being allowed to shoot 8 threes a game?

5. Wesley Person - Ditto Brent Barry.

6. Rodney Rogers- could put the ball in the bucket. I could only imagine watching him operate with the floor spacing that the game has today? He’d be a terror on opposing defenses.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Ok my criteria was find guys that never made the all-star game back then who could be all-stars today with more favorable rules.

1. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf - him playing without hand checking being allowed and todays freedom of movement rules would be scary.

2. Walt Williams - Could handle, shoot pass…he’d thrive in this era more than he did. Perfect player for today’s basketball.

3. Robert Horry - his versatility, defense, passing and shooting…another ideal guy for todays game who’d make a serious impact.

4. Brent Barry - Athletic, could handle and shoot the piss out of the ball. Imagine him being allowed to shoot 8 threes a game?

5. Wesley Person - Ditto Brent Barry.

6. Rodney Rogers- could put the ball in the bucket. I could only imagine watching him operate with the floor spacing that the game has today? He’d be a terror on opposing defenses.

3 More non-all-stars that if I added to a rotation with the above 6, would give me a team that would be a strong playoff team…possibly even a conference finals team today.

Terry Mills
Marcus Camby
Lindsay Hunter

[tdot_steel]

These players and their ability to shoot would excel in todays's game

Dale Ellis
Chris Jackson or Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf
Derrick Coleman
Clifford Robinson
Allen Houston
Sam Perkins
Nick Van Exel
Jamal Mashburn
Raef Lafrentz
Isaiah Rider
Tim Hardaway
Glen Rice
Papa Sabonis
Donyell Marshall
Eddie Jones
Damon Stoudamire
Kenny Anderson
Mookie Blalock
Glenn Robinson
Larry Johnson
Dana Barros
Sean Elliott
Chuck Person
Mark Price
Vernon Maxwell

[SelfishPlayer]

Yes, give LeBron a super deep team with multiple guys who are capable All-Stars even if not perennial, multiple guys who can defend, guys who can switch and great spacing, and he wins, WHAT? Really? Yes, if you prepare the perfect team of complimentary players around great players, those teams tend to be able to win.

You have a starting lineup with three guys, Jones, Finley and Elliot who in their best seasons put up 18-19 ppg, 20-22 ppg and 16-17 ppg and who can all shoot and defend and even create. You stick a great versatile defensive SF/PF/C in Uncle Cliff at C, who some only remember for his older days, but at his best was an 18-20 ppg scorer who could defend and wouldn't be shy to shoot from outside. So you give LeBron more balanced scoring than he's ever played with, shooters at every position and length and mobility, a team that can't even be built realistically with the salary cap and that team being able to win means something negative about the era?

Hakeem won with less in the 90's, Duncan won with less in the 00's and Dirk got to the finals with less in the 00's. Young inexperienced LeBron got to the finals with his second best teammate being worse than the 8th man in this team you developed. The Cavs in the 00's would have gone to multiple finals and w,on multiple championships with this roster. LeBron could win with those rosters in past seasons too, let's not get tricked by this "All-Star" label idea and lose sight of the fact that being a great team is being a great team. Eddie Jones for example was a 3*All-Star, 3*All-Defense and 1*All-NBA, that's an excellent teammate.

You put Stark's off the bench and Ewing went to the finals and 7 games with a starting lineup of Starks, Harper, Oakley and Smith, solid, but Starks is now in the bench. You put Tayshaun a defensive stopper and let player for the Pistons championship as this teams what, 7th or 8th man? You have Schrempf, a 17/7/4 super efficient combo forward in his prime, the starting forward and third leading scorer in a finals Seattle team off the bench as your 6th man even though you put him behind Prince in the depth chart, he technically could be starting next to Cliff and would be the primary PF/C off the bench.

I'm not sure what point this is making. You just developed a team the has Starks, Ellie, Prince and Schrempf ALL off the bench as an example of what exactly? Then you grabbed all the great shooters and stuck them in there for the third string, just to stack this team even more in favour of the best players talent. Mario Ellie at 35 started for the championship Spurs and he was a key rotation player for two Houston championships. This is a freaking ridiculous team, what is this example?

Why would you presume that roster is comprised of the most ideal version of each player? If you take the most idealized version of each player on the 2021 Heat roster and add Lebron wouldn't we be about at the same place?

Well you didn't specify what version, what do you want us to assume? If there's no specific then we can't make any judgement because we'll all be choosing different versions of each player. It could literally vary from rookie to washed up version.

If you presume the most idealized version of a player, then I can construct a list of much less accomplished players from the 90s/2000s and Lebron will still win a CHIP in this era with them. The 2021 Miami Heat with Lebron and all of the guys in their best idealized form is a super deep team too no? If you presume the most idealized form regarding players then any list I comprise of random NBA players that played greater than 8 seasons with at least one of those seasons with a 1.8 VORP Lebron will win with them. The thing is that you probably wouldn't presume idealized form if I put together a list of guys that never played very well in the NBA for a full season but had some good games like Tony Delk. He would be the prime example and at the head of the list. Is he bringing his idealized form, his career average, or a random season? Out of the three idealized form should never be presumed IMO.

[tdot_steel]

All one needs to know about basketball today is post-Laker Shaq would be limited to minutes and played off the floor in the NBA 2020 game. He would be reduced to a rim runner and shot blocker.

[elchengue20]

Better : All players who could shoot 3's at high volume and/or were switchable defensively.

Worse : All players who couldn't shoot 3's at high volume and/or weren't switchable defensively.



This applies especially to big mans and forwards. Also to scoring point guards who weren't allowed to spam 3's.


Rasheed, Horry, Nash, Arenas, Marion, Rashard Lewis, Reggie Miller, are the ones that always think about.

[SelfishPlayer]

Better : All players who could shoot 3's at high volume and/or were switchable defensively.

Worse : All players who couldn't shoot 3's at high volume and/or weren't switchable defensively.



This applies especially to big mans and forwards. Also to scoring point guards who weren't allowed to spam 3's.


Rasheed, Horry, Nash, Arenas, Marion, Rashard Lewis, Reggie Miller, are the ones that always think about.

Not all NBA players today shoot threes at high volume. If a guy can benefit from more floor spacing then he would be better today. Jeff Malone was 6'4" and didn't shoot threes, he would be better today.

[chuck_wagon44]

Robert Horry

Nick Van Exel

Damon Stoudamire

Cuttino Mobley

Channing Frye

[chuck_wagon44]

Rashard Lewis would be a superstar in this generation. Im being serious.

Whatever Kris Middleton thinks he is, Rashard would be a superstar version of him.

[Frank Dux]

Lamar Odom

[Chronz]

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.

Bro, he was a midget with an athletic-dependent game turning 30, these types rarely, if ever, enjoy their peak season at this stage. A wing, big, or a shooter, sure, but not midgets.

AI would have been the most unstoppable penetrator outside of jj barea at his apex.

[jk25]

Sheeeeeed.

[tsherkin]

Bro, he was a midget with an athletic-dependent game turning 30, these types rarely, if ever, enjoy their peak season at this stage. A wing, big, or a shooter, sure, but not midgets.

AI would have been the most unstoppable penetrator outside of jj barea at his apex.

I don't think it would matter all that much, in the main because I don't see him capitalizing enough with his finishing rate (which I doubt would rise enough to matter) and that he was already killing it on draw rate. He wouldn't become some .600 FTr dude and he wouldn't be a 70% finisher at the rim, and he wouldn't magically be better from the perimeter. There is a cap on how effective he would be.

Would he still be very good? Absolutely. Would we see more seasons from him which looked closer to his peak value? Absolutely. Would he improve by not having to take 27 FGA/g? For sure. Would he suddenly become some total juggernaut on offense? No. Would he maybe look more like late-80s/early 90s Nique? Sure, that seems likely, as it matches the upper bound of what he actually achieved.

AI was good, man, but he didn't have unlimited potential to improve just because of the rules change. That's not how it works.