Stalwart wrote:I'm not going to take the stance that these guys definitely wouldn't make the league. West is a good enough shooter with good enough instincts that he could conceivably secure a spot as a role player and spot up shooter. A Steve Kerr type of role. However, West is not a good enough athlete nor does he have the requisite ball handling to be a dominant scorer in the 1990s. Too many athletes. Too much defense. Too much physicality. Too much sophistication.
What am I reading right now...?
Did you just equal Jerry West to Steve Kerr in terms of skillset and athleticism? Did you just say that West wouldn't be athletic enough to be a dominant scorer in an era when midgets like Michael Adams averaged 27 ppg, unathletic tiny PGs like Tim Hardaway scored 23 ppg and poor ball-handlers like Reggie Miller or Clyde Drexler dominated in postseason? We're talking about the era when unathletic guys like Jeff Hornacek and Joe Dumars reached 20+ppg and were key part of championship teams.
Are you even aware that West was very athletic? He destroys players like Dumars or Hornacek in basically everything. Clyde Drexler was significantly worse ball-handler than West.
And Bill Russell is a good enough athlete and big enough guy that he could also use his IQ and intangibles to secure a spot as role player. I could actually see Russell being a great utility player in the 90s. But that's still a role player and a far cry from the dominant player he was in the 60s.
So again, Russell would be a role player in an era when guys like Mutombo or Kemp were penneral all-stars? Is that's what you're trying to sell here?
I think Russell's defensive domination was era specific and would not translate to later eras. Its much easier protecting the rim against Sam Jones than Clyde Drexler.
Thankfully, Russell didn't have to protect the paint against his own teammate... Instead, he had to defend it against Jerry West and Elgin Baylor duet and I'd argue it wasn't any easier than against Clyde.
Given that the closest defender ever to Russell from physical standpoint played in the 1990s and dominated, I'd argue that his defensive domination would translate just fine.
His IQ may not be as great of an advantage by the 90s. He has no post game. Not great shooting. I don't think his passing ability translates to later eras due to more sophisticated defenders.
There is nothing sophisticated about defenses during the peak of illegal defense rules.
He never really could slowdown Wilt when they matched up so I don't see him being a defensive presence against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, ect.
How did he fail to slow down Wilt, when Wilt's numbers were drasticly worse against him and Wilt's teams regularly underperformed offensively against the Celtics?
Where would his impact come from? I don't see it.
Maybe because you don't want to see it...
However, when you look at the good players from the 90s we can easily see these guys being successful in todays game. You don't have to add one skill or upgrade to Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton to envision them dominating todays game. Heck, even 'lesser' players like Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Reggie Miller, Scottie Pippen, Mark Price would excel in todays game. Almost all of the premiere players from the 90s could make it in todays league.
That's wishful thinking from you. If you think that Jerry West equals to Steve Kerr in the 1990s, but John Stockton would "dominate" in today's game, then you show lack of the basic ability to analyze the game.
