Would the best Big Men of today fare better or worse in the 90s-00s?

[Ol Roy]

Let me clarify what the poll is asking. You get to make four selections. Please only select one option (Better OR Worse) per player so that the results aren't wonky.

And of course, please discuss in the thread as well.

[LukaTheGOAT]

This is a potentially tricky question because I believe all big men (outside of maybe Davis, but likely still including him) benefit offensively due to the added spacing in today's game. This spacing allows for more driving lanes, better passing angles, and a greater variety of scoring options, whether they are scoring themselves or facilitating for their teams, as people can shoot from anywhere nowadays. Offenses can be more effectively run through them due to this spacing and the more lenient rules that enable complex dribble/move combinations and actions that lead to fouls, which might not have been called in the past (you mentioned foul-baiting, not me). So, we have smarter offenses, that play with more pace, and are able to get better looks with the defense not set up.

That said, while big men benefit offensively in today’s game, their defensive impact is somewhat diminished for the same reasons. Historically, much of a big man’s impact (often more than half for many all-time greats) has come from their defense rather than their offense. More perimeter-oriented big men today are able to challenge this historical trend by being more self-sufficient in getting the ball and generating offensive opportunities. However, the key question is how to measure the trade-off between improved offensive capabilities and a potentially less impactful defensive presence.

Another critical and often overlooked issue is the role of injuries in determining a player's overall championship value. Injuries among star players have been on the rise over the past few years, particularly since 2021 (with 2024 being a pleasant surprise in terms of player health). The increased stop-and-start movements and the larger area that needs to be covered in the modern, spaced-out NBA have led to higher injury rates, notably affecting players like Giannis and Embiid in the postseason. Even if star big men like Giannis and Embiid perform better when healthy in this era, they might have had a better chance of contributing to championship runs in the 90s and 00s, where they would presumably be less prone to injuries. We don’t ignore injuries when evaluating Bill Walton's all-time ranking because they are seen as intrinsic to his career (unfortunately). We shouldn't be quick to dismiss the impact of injuries on current players either.

*Disclaimer: This injury factor isn’t particularly relevant to Jokic, and while it seems as if AD is always dealing with some nagging injury, except for 2021, he has consistently been available when needed and has elevated his postseason performance compared to the regular season.

Despite writing all of this, I am still no closer to an answer. Perhaps someone else will respond and inspire me to chime in myself. Any thoughts?

*Update:

I guess I will take a bite out of one side of this. I think Giannis declines in the 90s and 000s. He doesn't have quite the same driving lanes, nor the ability to gain full speed in a more condensed half-court. I'm assuming he still bulks up, which hinders his shooting development, so he doesn't have a way to counter less driving space. Giannis' defense maybe sees a slight boost, however Giannis' defense is built on versatility, so I'm not sure if the current era is hindering it a ton from what it could be in earlier times. To speak more on this in particular, Giannis against bulkier bigs is fine but probably not a strong suit of his. Giannis benefits probably more than anyone from 5-out spacing and this is less likely in earlier eras.

[penbeast0]

Very broadly speaking, on court impact would be fairly similar. Efficiency would be a bit down due to less spacing so less room to work plus having two bigs on most teams would allow more interior doubles and the like. But offenses would be built more around bigs so possibly more primacy (on the average, not going to specifics) and the bigs who shoot 3's might get more open 3's as more bigs would stay home and not chase on the perimeter.

However, there's another issue. Today's players, many of these particularly, don't play as many games/minutes as the stars of earlier eras so while their per minute numbers might show more scoring for example, their impact relative to other top bigs of the era might be less impactful as Tim Duncan is out there playing 80 games a season while Embiid/Davis/etc. are playing 60. Again, very broad strokes rather than careful analysis.

[tsherkin]

Very broadly speaking, on court impact would be fairly similar. Efficiency would be a bit down due to less spacing so less room to work plus having two bigs on most teams would allow more interior doubles and the like. But offenses would be built more around bigs so possibly more primacy (on the average, not going to specifics) and the bigs who shoot 3's might get more open 3's as more bigs would stay home and not chase on the perimeter.

However, there's another issue. Today's players, many of these particularly, don't play as many games/minutes as the stars of earlier eras so while their per minute numbers might show more scoring for example, their impact relative to other top bigs of the era might be less impactful as Tim Duncan is out there playing 80 games a season while Embiid/Davis/etc. are playing 60. Again, very broad strokes rather than careful analysis.

There's a big question in how the coaches would let them play, too, right?

A lot of what goes on today is heavily reliant upon coaches not being stuck in the ancient archetype of "TALL MEANS LOW POST" type of stuff. A bunch of the faceup action would be at least a little harder with SOME small extra emphasis on calling BS on some of the dribbling, but I think in large part they'd be fine. Robinson and Olajuwon and Ewing all slashed from the elbow and near areas often enough, after all. Taking 3s might have the coach tearing out what's left of his hair, though.

As you say, for most of the bigs in the 90s and 2000s, their D was a lot more important than their O. Particularly because it was so challenging for most of them to sustain in the playoffs. Witness Ewing and Robinson, for example. But their D stayed relevant. Olajuwon had a lower regular-season ceiling on O, but maintained in the playoffs. Shaq had a lower defensive ceiling, but his O was monstrous. Mourning was a tier below but still quite good, and of course we saw Mutombo and Big Ben and so forth.

But we also saw in the 90s how powerful it was to have a PF who could hit a 12- to 15-footer. Ho Grant, for example, or Buck Williams or Kurt Thomas, etc, etc. Opening up the interior with era-relative spacing as a precursor to later years. Same same the impact with Dirk or, to an extent I dislike having to admit, Webber. So you take a guy like Jokic and he's going to murder the crap out of that era even if you take away his 3s, spacing be damned (and minding the illegal D rules). And defensively, no RA, no auto-blocking foul under the rim? Things get a little more interesting for rim protection, anyway.

As you say, though, availability and minutes are huge for 75% of this selection. Davis, Embiid and Giannis all have issues with staying on the court at around 33 mpg. Being asked to play 35-40 mpg would ruin them. Jokic, I expect, would be fine.

[penbeast0]

...But we also saw in the 90s how powerful it was to have a PF who could hit a 12- to 15-footer. Ho Grant, for example, or Buck Williams or Kurt Thomas, etc, etc. Opening up the interior with era-relative spacing as a precursor to later years....

I don't know if there's a strong correlation between having some range (12-15') at the 4 in that era or not. All of those guys, Grant, Buck, Kurt Thomas, those were guys who made their reputations on defense and rebounding. None were scorers, maybe Buck a little bit early on with the Nets. Grant adds some passing skills the others didn't show so he has a bit better offensive rep but still more a rep of a defensive specialist.

[tsherkin]

I don't know if there's a strong correlation between having some range (12-15') at the 4 in that era or not. All of those guys, Grant, Buck, Kurt Thomas, those were guys who made their reputations on defense and rebounding. None were scorers, maybe Buck a little bit early on with the Nets. Grant adds some passing skills the others didn't show so he has a bit better offensive rep but still more a rep of a defensive specialist.

They didn't need to be scorers, that wasn't my point. I was noting the utility of having a little bit of era-relative range as an outlet for a focal star/other players. Certainly, those guys were all supporting cast, not offensive centerpieces.

In the context of a bigger guy with some range, it does open up the interior. That's why Horry made such a large impact on Olajuwon and Shaq, after all. Same same Shard with Dwight and so forth. It's a positive thing to clear a defend out from under the rim by forcing them to come guard you at range. And when you sit the type of bigs you mostly saw in that era out on an island beyond the paint, they're in all kinds of trouble against bigs with footspeed.

[penbeast0]

Horry and Rashard dragged their men far enough out that they couldn't get back to double at the rim easily; I'm not sure Kurt Thomas and Buck Williams have enough range to make that claim. But yes, we know spacing is more valuable than we (well, I) thought it was back in the 00s. Question is how much that level of 00s spacing affects the top bigs of today's games.

[tsherkin]

Horry and Rashard dragged their men far enough out that they couldn't get back to double at the rim easily; I'm not sure Kurt Thomas and Buck Williams have enough range to make that claim. But yes, we know spacing is more valuable than we (well, I) thought it was back in the 00s. Question is how much that level of 00s spacing affects the top bigs of today's games.

Neither KT nor Buck had the same range as Horry or Rashard, no doubt. But they were earlier examples of using a big with some range to clear some space underneath the rim. It has been a progression over time, after all.

In any case, we got to see plenty of clear-out post isolations in the 90s and 2000s, so we know it's quite possible. And off-ball movement was still a thing. Jokic wouldn't have any issues that I can think of. Embiid would be fine while healthy. AD is exceptionally adept off-ball, so I can't envision him having major issues either.

Giannis would be the guy who worries me the most, and then primarily in the PS when things tighten up and slow down. He strikes me as someone like David Robinson, still able to barrel toward the rim and draw fouls, but struggling to convert FGAs. And he doesn't really even have Robinson-level range, and is worse at the line. Like, dude's useless past 10 feet, so that's a bit of an issue for him in that earlier era, for sure. Particularly late 90s and early 00s when everything was hella slow and disgusting. Giannis has averaged 7 transition possessions per game for the past half-dozen seasons, so that's gonna take some zip out of his raw FG% no question, right?

[Owly]

Horry and Rashard dragged their men far enough out that they couldn't get back to double at the rim easily; I'm not sure Kurt Thomas and Buck Williams have enough range to make that claim. But yes, we know spacing is more valuable than we (well, I) thought it was back in the 00s. Question is how much that level of 00s spacing affects the top bigs of today's games.

Different eras with minimal overlap (none of prime) and shot diets change over time (Buck taking more shots overall earlier than later, Thomas takes more longer shots over his time on the Knicks) ...

I think we can be a lot more confident in Thomas spacing the floor. .441 from long-2 (16 to 3pt) and .438 from mid-2 (10ft to 15ft) ... fwiw this compares favorably to Horry's (and obviously he had the more valuable 3 ball at solid percentage, and a substantially larger proportion of his shots than the following two combined ...) .284 from long-two and .380 from mid-two. Point being Thomas could stick the jumper.

Buck was much weaker from the stripe, had fg% that suggest a selective shot diet when he was in a smaller role. We don't have reliable data for his field shooting splits. My impression (reading, limited recollections) is a more limited range.

[picko]

The raw numbers may be diminished - largely due to pace - but there's no genuine reason why any of these guys would be less impactful relative to their peaks in the 1990s and 2000s. They would effectively be moving into a lower quality league, from a talent stand point, and so if anything you'd expect them to be even more impactful. In some cases, the skill sets of these new bigs would be revolutionary.

[Hair Jordan]

Worse, especially Giannis. He’s able to feast nowadays against stretch 4’s and skinny centers with his bully ball game. That wouldn’t be as easy against Shaq, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Dikembe, Mourning, Oakley, Mason, Antonio and Dale Davis and other low post bruisers from the 90’s. His efficiency would nose dive. No more 15-20 FG games with like 12 dunks. He’d suffer even more when the refs called him for traveling on damn near every possession as well

[tsherkin]

Worse, especially Giannis. He’s able to feast nowadays against stretch 4’s and skinny centers with his bully ball game. That wouldn’t be as easy against Shaq, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Dikembe, Mourning, Oakley, Mason, Antonio and Dale Davis and other low post bruisers from the 90’s. His efficiency would nose dive. No more 15-20 FG games with like 12 dunks. He’d suffer even more when the refs called him for traveling on damn near every possession as well

Worth mentioning that he had a mobility advantage against a couple of those guys, and a power advantage over others. I doubt Oakley or Mase, nor either of the Davises would be much threat. And Mutombo would have trouble guarding his face-up game. Shaq, Dream, D-Rob, maybe Mourning, better chances of faring well against him defensively, obviously, but I think you are not treating Giannis fairly at all.

[Hair Jordan]

Worse, especially Giannis. He’s able to feast nowadays against stretch 4’s and skinny centers with his bully ball game. That wouldn’t be as easy against Shaq, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Dikembe, Mourning, Oakley, Mason, Antonio and Dale Davis and other low post bruisers from the 90’s. His efficiency would nose dive. No more 15-20 FG games with like 12 dunks. He’d suffer even more when the refs called him for traveling on damn near every possession as well

Worth mentioning that he had a mobility advantage against a couple of those guys, and a power advantage over others. I doubt Oakley or Mase, nor either of the Davises would be much threat. And Mutombo would have trouble guarding his face-up game. Shaq, Dream, D-Rob, maybe Mourning, better chances of faring well against him defensively, obviously, but I think you are not treating Giannis fairly at all.

I might be overstating it a bit but I think his game would definitely suffer in the 90’s. You might think Oakley and Mason wouldn’t be able to handle him but they were good defenders and had 12 fouls to give. 18 fouls to give when you add in Ewing. My point is that he wouldn’t be able to bully those guys for 12 dunks a game. Also, if they called the game by 90’s rules, he’d get called for numerous travels and carries every game. Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq were all better athletes and had more polished games and he puts up better stats than them on average. He’s a product of the era.

[tsherkin]

I might be overstating it a bit but I think his game would definitely suffer in the 90’s. You might think Oakley and Mason wouldn’t be able to handle him but they were good defenders and had 12 fouls to give. 18 fouls to give when you add in Ewing. My point is that he wouldn’t be able to bully those guys for 12 dunks a game. Also, if they called the game by 90’s rules, he’d get called for numerous travels and carries every game. Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq were all better athletes and had more polished games and he puts up better stats than them on average. He’s a product of the era.

I don't think it would suffer that much. Sure, absolute efficiency would drop a little, but in general, he'd still be a monster.

And yes, Oakley and Mason were good defenders but Giannis is a 7-foot monster with very good athleticism. Neither had the mobility to keep up with him. "Product of his era" is a reference to specific numbers, not efficacy. He'd still be a monster, much in the same fashion as Shaq had been in that earlier era. You're crapping on Giannis too hard for no real reason.

[Blame Rasho]

...But we also saw in the 90s how powerful it was to have a PF who could hit a 12- to 15-footer. Ho Grant, for example, or Buck Williams or Kurt Thomas, etc, etc. Opening up the interior with era-relative spacing as a precursor to later years....

I don't know if there's a strong correlation between having some range (12-15') at the 4 in that era or not. All of those guys, Grant, Buck, Kurt Thomas, those were guys who made their reputations on defense and rebounding. None were scorers, maybe Buck a little bit early on with the Nets. Grant adds some passing skills the others didn't show so he has a bit better offensive rep but still more a rep of a defensive specialist.

We are all old, but did you remember that Kurt Thomas actually led the NCAA in scoring and rebounding? I honestly thought he would be a way better scorer in the NBA. He was money from mid range.

[penbeast0]

Hi Rasho, been a while! I didn't remember that, no. I remember Michael Cage being a big college scorer and having little scoring game in the pros, but not Thomas.

[tsherkin]

We are all old, but did you remember that Kurt Thomas actually led the NCAA in scoring and rebounding? I honestly thought he would be a way better scorer in the NBA. He was money from mid range.

I did not remember that, but of course, I don't really care about the NCAA. It's meaningless. Adam Morrison led the nation with 28.1 ppg in his junior year and was co-player of the year with JJ Redick. And then he was a scrub for 161 games and scraped up a couple titles with Kobe before playing in Serbia, you know what I mean?

But yes, KT's mid-range J was quite nice.

[Heat3]

I think only Giannis fares better overall if he is still playing PF.

The other guys fare worse because they’ll be facing tougher competition night in and night out than they do today. It would take a toll on them over the course of the season. They can all shoot from long distance better than the typical center of that era though.

Thats not to say they’d be bums. They would still be good but its a crowded field and their advantages wouldn’t be as it is today.

[Heat3]

...But we also saw in the 90s how powerful it was to have a PF who could hit a 12- to 15-footer. Ho Grant, for example, or Buck Williams or Kurt Thomas, etc, etc. Opening up the interior with era-relative spacing as a precursor to later years....

I don't know if there's a strong correlation between having some range (12-15') at the 4 in that era or not. All of those guys, Grant, Buck, Kurt Thomas, those were guys who made their reputations on defense and rebounding. None were scorers, maybe Buck a little bit early on with the Nets. Grant adds some passing skills the others didn't show so he has a bit better offensive rep but still more a rep of a defensive specialist.

We are all old, but did you remember that Kurt Thomas actually led the NCAA in scoring and rebounding? I honestly thought he would be a way better scorer in the NBA. He was money from mid range.

I remember. I was so hyped when the Heat drafted him. I would try to get him leading the league in scoring in nba live

[hugepatsfan]

I think Ant would fare better because as a PF in that era than he does as a C in this. It's more the game he wants to play.

I think Giannis would struggle with the relative lack of spacing he'd likely play with in that era and back when teams played two big men together it was easier to build the proverbial "wall" that's been the most effective defense against him.

I think Embiid would be roughly the same. He'd go against better post defenders but his athleticism would be more even more freakish and tough to match up with.

I think Joker would hurt from needing to be more engaged defensively on ball against post ups and the lack of spacing around him on offense.