The next "plumbers and firemen" comment -- now including the 80s and 90s

[OhayoKD]

So I will respectfully say this to you, for someone who went out of their way, speaking on behalf of another poster, you completely misread the situation here on my end and/or many of the previous posts made. So, to me, and I only speak for myself here, the biggest danger is providing incorrect assumption around context made while acting like you've hit the nail on the head. I enjoy your posts, but I can do without the life lessons, as I can stand on my own two feet just fine.

Can you?

You're six posts into this and still haven't explained your obsession with framing grade-school applications of math as "formulas" and "metrics".

Instead, we have a rant about how the only relevant marker for expertise for an exercise of history and research is direct anecdotal experience; a thinly concealed coping mechanism for the fact that even in the one place on the internet that gasses Bill Russell, pretty much no one finds your "protector of history" bit convincing.

History is, contrary to the belief of many, a science. Parties who cannot distinguish between basic subtraction and BPM are generally not the ones who warrant credence in the pursuit of historical understanding, and that remains true whether they've played hoops in the NBA or Six Flags.

We're back to higher-quality discourse now. Why don't we focus on Bird and "direct line of sight" stuff instead of personally-connected observations, yeah?

Your point is fair, but to the degree it changes the answer to a translation question largely depends on approach. Are we teleporting Bird as is or are we turning back the clock and if so to when? The issue with the latter approach(the one I think that gives Bird the opportunity to get the better preparation you attribute the more proactive approach taken by modern savants) is the more we go back, the less likely it is Bird acquires whatever he acquired circumstantially(it's not all genetic) to give you the confidence that he would be able to capitalize on what this era has to offer as well as he did on his own period.

Personally I just prefer taking players as they are as opposed to assuming things out of a pursuit of "fairness"(pretty empty phrase in this context). Era-relative comps are indirect. Absolute comps are direct and thereby "purer". The more you revert the clock, the more you lose that pro.

[tsherkin]

Your point is fair, but to the degree it changes the answer to a translation question largely depends on approach. Are we teleporting Bird as is or are we turning back the clock and if so to when? The issue with the latter approach(the one I think that gives Bird the opportunity to get the better preparation you attribute the more proactive approach taken by modern savants) is the more we go back, the less likely it is Bird acquires whatever he acquired circumstantially(it's not all genetic) to give you the confidence that he would be able to capitalize on what this era has to offer as well as he did on his own period.

Personally I just prefer taking players as they are as opposed to assuming things out of a pursuit of "fairness"(pretty empty phrase in this context). Era-relative comps are indirect. Absolute comps are direct and thereby "purer". The more you revert the clock, the more you lose that pro.

I think it's basically unfair to take a player from an earlier era and not afford them the grace of contemporary training and coach-rooted deployment, because that... isn't how things work. Even if you took Bird as he was at his peak, he'd still end up spending all of his practice time learning how to do things the modern way, and within the team scheme, you know what I mean?

An absolute comparison is meaningless, because it is explicitly biased and a failure of reason, in essence.

[OhayoKD]

Your point is fair, but to the degree it changes the answer to a translation question largely depends on approach. Are we teleporting Bird as is or are we turning back the clock and if so to when? The issue with the latter approach(the one I think that gives Bird the opportunity to get the better preparation you attribute the more proactive approach taken by modern savants) is the more we go back, the less likely it is Bird acquires whatever he acquired circumstantially(it's not all genetic) to give you the confidence that he would be able to capitalize on what this era has to offer as well as he did on his own period.

Personally I just prefer taking players as they are as opposed to assuming things out of a pursuit of "fairness"(pretty empty phrase in this context). Era-relative comps are indirect. Absolute comps are direct and thereby "purer". The more you revert the clock, the more you lose that pro.

I think it's basically unfair to take a player from an earlier era and not afford them the grace of contemporary training and coach-rooted deployment, because that... isn't how things work

I really don't see the difference between this and "it's basiclaly unfair to take a guy and not afford them the grace of top-tier genetics" or any other useful context someone enjoys en route to success. "Fair" and "deserve" are useful constructs in certain situations, but I'm not particularly interested in drawing an arbitrary line for something as trivial as list-making.

"Fair" isn't something I consider when choosing this sort of framework. "Interesting"? sure. "Productive"? sure. But we don't need to moralize player-rankings.

Even if you took Bird as he was at his peak, he'd still end up spending all of his practice time learning how to do things the modern way, and within the team scheme, you know what I mean?

Sure. Though the same struggle would apply to some degree the other way. I'm fine giving an off-season of grace or making some favorable assumptions depending on the context. But everyone should be aware those are assumptions, not necessarily probable outcomes.

An absolute comparison is meaningless, because it is explicitly biased and a failure of reason, in essence.

Not sure how it's any more biased than "what did you do in your era". It is however a more direct comparison, which to me makes it "purer"; side-stepping the arbitrary lines we draw to distinguish between an individual and the context that creates them(a prerequire to considering something "fair" or not) and just comparing the final result.

[tsherkin]

I really don't see the difference between this and "it's basiclaly unfair to take a guy and not afford them the grace of top-tier genetics"

Really? Because genetics, you're born with. Coaching and training and what-not were available broadly and had nothing to do with rare physical tools.

or any other useful context someone enjoys en route to success. "Fair" and "deserve" are useful constructs in certain situations, but I'm not particularly interested in drawing an arbitrary line for something as trivial as list-making.

Then that's a meaningful impediment to me, because it isn't really a logical framework I find manageable. "Here, let's compare this guy to someone 30, 40 years later who had a bunch of non-physical advantages broadly available to the people of his generation, but without affording those same things to the older guy... and let's harp on him for not acting like the newer guys were trained to act" doesn't make any sense to me.

Not sure how it's any more biased than "what did you do in your era".

Reminding you that I mostly stick to in-era and adjacent-era comparisons due to the greater similarity of the game played at those times, I think it's considerably less biased because you aren't affording an advantage to one player through variables which would easily be evened out. You're perpetually affording advantage to the more modern guys by allowing them the luxuries of their era while denying them to the older guys. That isn't really an evened-out comparison at all.

It is however a more direct comparison, which to me makes it "purer";

Now who's moralizing?

My point is, a direct comparison isn't a quality comparison because it perpetually assumes the older guys were stupid and wouldn't listen to the coaching and training of the time. They listened in their own time, adapted to the way things worked in their time. It isn't sensible to say "ah, you know what? Screw it, Bird wouldn't listen to the defensive schemes of his coaches if he'd played today." For example.

[MacGill]

You're six posts into this and still haven't explained your obsession with framing grade-school applications of math as "formulas" and "metrics".

Instead, we have a rant about how the only relevant marker for expertise for an exercise of history and research is direct anecdotal experience; a thinly concealed coping mechanism for the fact that even in the one place on the internet that gasses Bill Russell, pretty much no one finds your "protector of history" bit convincing.

History is, contrary to the belief of many, a science. Parties who cannot distinguish between basic subtraction and BPM are generally not the ones who warrant credence in the pursuit of historical understanding, and that remains true whether they've played hoops in the NBA or Six Flags.

Listen, I don't need to frame anything to you as you're the pen pusher here, not me. You think posters can't summarize responses to you in a single thread, based off of where you have hundreds/thousands of gaslighting comments from others.

Let's use yourself for this example, shall we. Using your science, do you think you'd have a chance of making the senior highschool basketball team if you tried out in 1980? Or, would your same crappy genetics follow you wherever you went? And if you were born 30 years from now, are you ready to admit to me that there would be no way that you could understand modern day science so unfortunately you wouldn't be able to make posts on RealGM?

Or, just perhaps, we aren't playing 'Back to the Future' in real time, and in either scenario you would obviously have the luxury, or not so much, to benefit from that era's infrastructure because any pro athlete is the .0001% in any time frame. And the worst case, in case you're adamant that it needs to be a real time switch, the pro player will still make the cut, and most likely their genetics kick in and slowly increases their level of play with more exposure. Most ATG athletes play up to their level of competition which is normally why, but not always, you see their absolute best on their biggest stage. And even you, 30 years from now could still post about how MJ, still viewed as the GOAT with Russell as 1B, but were all overrated etc.

100% science has it's place in the world, that is without question. But you seem to hide behind your science because you don't know the first thing about being on the front lines or having even decent genetics where it just comes as easy to you as does breathing. So you evaluate using formulas that you understand, the logic you understand, on something you've never really done and with genetics you've never been blessed with. Like an IQ - their are some remarkable posters in this very forum who think at a level that I can't even imagine and break down things on a scale that my brain can't even comprehend or know where to even start. So like you physically, I have crappy brain genetics, but because I went to highschool and passed, and I can read and write, let me be the authority and articulate what all these extremely intelligent posters are actually trying to say, and let me go back and correct the past great intellects as well.

You simply don't have real life balance, and you need some when you post as if you're the holy grail of evaluating basketball. This is why most of the pro athletes only care about the simple box score stats because their game isn't moulded around 'what if' scenarios through grade school and college on how to create the greatest impact stats. It's for them to become the best that they can be with dreams of making the league. You, preaching science and then posting a YT video in hopes to highlight your point is just laughable.

[MacGill]

I think it's basically unfair to take a player from an earlier era and not afford them the grace of contemporary training and coach-rooted deployment, because that... isn't how things work. Even if you took Bird as he was at his peak, he'd still end up spending all of his practice time learning how to do things the modern way, and within the team scheme, you know what I mean?

An absolute comparison is meaningless, because it is explicitly biased and a failure of reason, in essence.

This is 100% on point. Obviously all of the current crop of players either directly or indirectly benefited from the previous eras. So why wouldn't we allow the luxury with both sides.

This is why I am always on record stating that ATG's would transcend regardless of era. Now, I can't state with 100% certainty that they play as well as they did in their time but they already had everything needed to stand out when they did play. And, we honestly don't even know if they maxed out because of the level of competition, where you only had a few true superstars per era. This isn't to be confused with any player from any era because I do think that many of the past and current players loose value as the game progresses but the top tier stars are the .0001% of the .0001%. You are simply a product of your environment and based on being an athlete am very confident that any superstar would 100% figure it out in any time period.

[tsherkin]

This is why I am always on record stating that ATG's would transcend regardless of era. Now, I can't state with 100% certainty that they play as well as they did in their time but they already had everything needed to stand out when they did play. And, we honestly don't even know if they maxed out because of the level of competition, where you only had a few true superstars per era. This isn't to be confused with any player from any era because I do think that many of the past and current players loose value as the game progresses but the top tier stars are the .0001% of the .0001%. You are simply a product of your environment and based on being an athlete am very confident that any superstar would 100% figure it out in any time period.

I think it's pretty clear that in anything resembling a similar league, you see guys continue to play at a star level, for sure. Sure, if you go far enough back to guys with push shots and stuff like that back in the late 40s and 50s, then we start having at least a LITTLE discussion of how well they transfer, but even that should be handled carefully. Especially with guys who had what remain outstanding physical attributes. Like, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob McAdoo, etc, etc, it's functionally evident that those guys would be absurd today, right? But even guards who had good form and good FT% and stuff, should transfer into a more modern era pretty well.

As you say, I think the real difference comes from MAGNITUDE of impact. It's clear that most of those dudes who love today's era. It's just that there are a whole pile of things which are different from their time, so specific numbers just differ, and whether or not they are an extant template or something new is different, right? Oscar, as a large ball handler, is suddenly not any kind of revelation the way he was in the 60s. In reality, he was one of the early examples of larger ball handlers who acted as a precedent for Magic and Pressey and Pippen and Hill and so forth up to Lebron and everyone else today. But he'd still be nasty with his skills and physical tools.

[MacGill]

This is why I am always on record stating that ATG's would transcend regardless of era. Now, I can't state with 100% certainty that they play as well as they did in their time but they already had everything needed to stand out when they did play. And, we honestly don't even know if they maxed out because of the level of competition, where you only had a few true superstars per era. This isn't to be confused with any player from any era because I do think that many of the past and current players loose value as the game progresses but the top tier stars are the .0001% of the .0001%. You are simply a product of your environment and based on being an athlete am very confident that any superstar would 100% figure it out in any time period.

I think it's pretty clear that in anything resembling a similar league, you see guys continue to play at a star level, for sure. Sure, if you go far enough back to guys with push shots and stuff like that back in the late 40s and 50s, then we start having at least a LITTLE discussion of how well they transfer, but even that should be handled carefully. Especially with guys who had what remain outstanding physical attributes. Like, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob McAdoo, etc, etc, it's functionally evident that those guys would be absurd today, right? But even guards who had good form and good FT% and stuff, should transfer into a more modern era pretty well.

As you say, I think the real difference comes from MAGNITUDE of impact. It's clear that most of those dudes who love today's era. It's just that there are a whole pile of things which are different from their time, so specific numbers just differ, and whether or not they are an extant template or something new is different, right? Oscar, as a large ball handler, is suddenly not any kind of revelation the way he was in the 60s. In reality, he was one of the early examples of larger ball handlers who acted as a precedent for Magic and Pressey and Pippen and Hill and so forth up to Lebron and everyone else today. But he'd still be nasty with his skills and physical tools.

Yeah, and do note, I fully agree that there is a time stamp on players and periods and obvious mechanical functions need to be displayed to even consider that said player. I don't think we saw the absolute best of the best in the infancy stages, nor do I even think we still have seen the absolute best globally in today's game, but it certainly is a far greater overall top to bottom talent disbursement, no doubt. I wonder just how many nba studs overseas choose soccer (football) over basketball.

To add onto your second point, my own thought as I believe the mechanics of the players game had already peaked decades ago. That isn't to confuse emphasis with improvement on faucets of the game, especially coaching etc, but we've really seen it all. And like in the past, we will continue to have new ATG's add their contribution/signature in progressing the game to the next level. We easily see it with the dunk contest and the creativity that used to wow the crowds to now. Imagine a young Vince Carter coming up and now he got to watch Zac/Gordon going off and that becomes his normal time stamp and bar set. Nique/MJ, Dr. J, all would benefit from it yet in hindsight they all already set and raised the bars in their own eras.

It is why, I always appreciated MJ's response in comparing him to other greats, and it always was we played in different eras but he would luv the opportunity to play against them. He never stated he would crush them or that they were primitive because himself as a competitive athlete knows 100% that these greats would still dominate because the game to these athletes mostly comes as easy naturally as you or I typing these responses. That doesn't mean you don't practice or can't improve but the basic fundamentals are beyond what we can even realize.

Example: I have a good friend whose dad played on the Jamaican national team for soccer. He played college football for Florida State and the sister turned down a national invite for soccer (too much politics) but the father was playing for a adult rec league, for sport, and was still winning DPOY. Here is the catch, he was in a competitive 35 year old league, he was given an exemption, but winning this at 67 years old. My gripe, is that most don't understand the true athletic side of things and how easy it is for most pro-athletes, who stay in shape to compete decades past their primes but it just isn't at that .0001% level, that's all.

Re: Oscar - without ever having 'science' to confirm but there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be, at minimum, as effective as he was in his own time but he may not have gotten the marvel as we've been numbed to the results a'la Westbrook. However, had the modern critique existed back in the earlier eras, we also may not have been as excited about many of the great feats that were made back then as well.

It's why I hate when modern advanced metrics are used specifically to dilute older generations who never lived through the spike in modern technology, especially on an individual level. That's not to say that there isn't value in the numbers but obviously there are so many reasons one would see a drop-off in comparion to modern day but the least of which in my own humble opinion is the actual mechanics of the game or evolution of the athlete to an area where any prior ATG couldn't reach.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, and do note, I fully agree that there is a time stamp on players and periods and obvious mechanical functions need to be displayed to even consider that said player. I don't think we saw the absolute best of the best in the infancy stages, nor do I even think we still have seen the absolute best globally in today's game, but it certainly is a far greater overall top to bottom talent disbursement, no doubt. I wonder just how many nba studs overseas choose soccer (football) over basketball.

Yeah, I think broadly we are on the same page so far on this.

To add onto your second point, my own thought as I believe the mechanics of the players game had already peaked decades ago. That isn't to confuse emphasis with improvement on faucets of the game, especially coaching etc, but we've really seen it all. And like in the past, we will continue to have new ATG's add their contribution/signature in progressing the game to the next level. We easily see it with the dunk contest and the creativity that used to wow the crowds to now. Imagine a young Vince Carter coming up and now he got to watch Zac/Gordon going off and that becomes his normal time stamp and bar set. Nique/MJ, Dr. J, all would benefit from it yet in hindsight they all already set and raised the bars in their own eras.

Indeed.

It is why, I always appreciated MJ's response in comparing him to other greats, and it always was we played in different eras but he would luv the opportunity to play against them. He never stated he would crush them or that they were primitive because himself as a competitive athlete knows 100% that these greats would still dominate because the game to these athletes mostly comes as easy naturally as you or I typing these responses. That doesn't mean you don't practice or can't improve but the basic fundamentals are beyond what we can even realize.

Yes, he always had things to say about David Thompson, Elgin Baylor, Dr J, etc. It's the one element of humility he has ever displayed.

Re: Oscar - without ever having 'science' to confirm but there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be, at minimum, as effective as he was in his own time but he may not have gotten the marvel as we've been numbed to the results a'la Westbrook. However, had the modern critique existed back in the earlier eras, we also may not have been as excited about many of the great feats that were made back then as well.

Yeah, the specifics would surely change. Remember, he was playing at 120 possessions per game and averaged 44 mpg in Cincinnati. Neither of those things would happen today, and he wasn't an explosive driver, per se. Athletic, but not in the same style as Westbrook, who just barrels his ass at the rim, which is part of why at 34 mpg, he can produce such stats. So Oscar would surely differ in his produced stats. In his own time, for example, he was a 24/7/8 PER36 guy in Cinci. Now, we see higher efficiencies today, we're starting to get back north of 100 possessions per game again, etc, etc. But we're not likely to see him rocking the 29/8.5/9.5 that he averaged in Cinci. It could happen; we've seen it in the actual contemporary NBA pretty closely and beyond from Westie and Lebron and Jokic, etc. But a 24/7/8 guy on high efficiency is still AMAZING, and that's without 3pt shooting or the elevated FG% inside 3 feet we have seen in today's game.

It's why I hate when modern advanced metrics are used specifically to dilute older generations who never lived through the spike in modern technology, especially on an individual level. That's not to say that there isn't value in the numbers but obviously there are so many reasons one would see a drop-off in comparion to modern day but the least of which in my own humble opinion is the actual mechanics of the game or evolution of the athlete to an area where any prior ATG couldn't reach.

Well too, anything which involves possessions is also an estimation for those years where we don't have turnovers and O boards and the like, right? A reasonably good one, I suppose, but also no blocks and no steals, etc, etc. It's incomplete, it's estimation, and some of the earlier metrics are influenced by scoring efficiency.

[OhayoKD]

You're six posts into this and still haven't explained your obsession with framing grade-school applications of math as "formulas" and "metrics".

Instead, we have a rant about how the only relevant marker for expertise for an exercise of history and research is direct anecdotal experience; a thinly concealed coping mechanism for the fact that even in the one place on the internet that gasses Bill Russell, pretty much no one finds your "protector of history" bit convincing.

History is, contrary to the belief of many, a science. Parties who cannot distinguish between basic subtraction and BPM are generally not the ones who warrant credence in the pursuit of historical understanding, and that remains true whether they've played hoops in the NBA or Six Flags.

Listen, I don't need to frame anything to you as you're the pen pusher here

What does pen pushing have to do with you trying to market simple things as complicated because they challenge your priors.

Let's use yourself for this example, shall we. Using your science, do you think you'd have a chance of making the senior highschool basketball team if you tried out in 1980? Or, would your same crappy genetics follow you wherever you went? And if you were born 30 years from now, are you ready to admit to me that there would be no way that you could understand modern day science so unfortunately you wouldn't be able to make posts on RealGM?

The ablity to do something =/ the ability to estimate the value provided by someone doing something. They are separate skills which require mostly different skillsets. And with that, we can cut some of the filler (there tends to be alot)

You simply don't have real life balance, and you need some when you post as if you're the holy grail of evaluating basketball

I do not believe I've ever anointed anyone as a "holy grail". Caring about who says something as opposed to what they say is something I leave to you. (speaking of, you still haven't explained subtraction being a metric)

This is why most of the pro athletes only care about the simple box score stats because their game isn't moulded around 'what if' scenarios through grade school and college on how to create the greatest impact stats

.
Making a box-score is a much more complicated (and biased)process than the basic subtraction you are perirenaly upset about. Team good with, team bad without, is about as simple as statistics get.

Not sure what "what ifs" you're talking about. "player x improved his team this much" is not a hypothetical. "Jordan or Shaq would have had more impact if they played this way" is.

[OhayoKD]

I really don't see the difference between this and "it's basiclaly unfair to take a guy and not afford them the grace of top-tier genetics"

Really? Because genetics, you're born with. Coaching and training and what-not were available broadly and had nothing to do with rare physical tools.

And what does that have to do with fairness? Is it "fair" people have different genes?

or any other useful context someone enjoys en route to success. "Fair" and "deserve" are useful constructs in certain situations, but I'm not particularly interested in drawing an arbitrary line for something as trivial as list-making.

Then that's a meaningful impediment to me, because it isn't really a logical framework I find manageable. "Here, let's compare this guy to someone 30, 40 years later who had a bunch of non-physical advantages broadly available to the people of his generation, but without affording those same things to the older guy... and let's harp on him for not acting like the newer guys were trained to act" doesn't make any sense to me.

Them using those advantages relies on a series of unlikely things happening in the first place. And you're still side-stepping the point. "Fair" is an entirely empty concept here. Who does this fairness benefit?

Not sure how it's any more biased than "what did you do in your era".

Reminding you that I mostly stick to in-era and adjacent-era comparisons due to the greater similarity of the game played at those times, I think it's considerably less biased because you aren't affording an advantage to one player through variables which would easily be evened out. You're perpetually affording advantage to the more modern guys by allowing them the luxuries of their era while denying them to the older guys. That isn't really an evened-out comparison at all.

Seems your issue here is the result a process currently brings out, not with the validity of the actual process. In the context of comparing people from different eras, the different "eras" are bringing a bunch of variables themselves. The only difference here is you've decided one set of variables is "unfair" and the other is fair arbitrary.

It is however a more direct comparison, which to me makes it "purer";

Now who's moralizing?

How is that moralirizing?

Which party here am i implying was wronged or not wronged? The pro of direct comparisons is you drop the value-judgements and simply compare things as they are/were.

My point is, a direct comparison isn't a quality comparison because it perpetually assumes the older guys were stupid and wouldn't listen to the coaching and training of the time.

It makes no such assumptions. You are the one making an assumption...and then blaming a nuetral process for not automatically accepting it.

The pro of era-relativity is it is an easier comparison to make. Not sure why we are complicating things beyond that.

[Redmoon]

For OPs original question - in my mind yes I'm starting to think of the 80s and 90s as old school now. As 70sfan mentioned its closer to the 60s than it is to 2024 which is quite a mind trip lol. The early 2000s are right there as well - you could take any great 80s and 90s team probably up till the 3pt revolution era and they would have great success. Now offenses have been supercharged with the 3 and better shot selection; older teams just wouldn't be able to compete from a math perspective.

Knowledge of how to play the game has changed and evolved, the talent pool has grown, and kids today have a massive headstart on their parents in terms of how and what to train. Its just a natural process of a successful institution that builds on previous generations. Since the 90s we have seen different player archetypes that people couldn't even imagine. Your Brons, Currys, Wembys, Jokics. We have also seen remixes of old archetypes as well. Shai, Zion, Bam. Its awesome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that I do take issue with posters here that disrespect and disparage the older eras. Players today are literally "standing on the shoulders of giants". People have done this since time immemorial, the older generation stuck in their old ways and the new gen thinks everything old is useless. I remember going through a 90s forum that was saying Jordan would score 60 a game in the 60s lol.

If you want to truly "answer" (not that it could ever be of course) what if player x plays in x era you have to think deeper than surface level "instantly teleport this player as is to x era". Sticking to direct or pure translation just for the sake of "certainty" is fools gold because this exercise inherently has no certainty beyond very basic facts. This also conveniently ignores the fact that players, especially the great ones, have evolved their games through the course of their careers in different league and team contexts. If you were going to transport them to a different ERA why would you not give them the benefit to change and adapt? Obviously it means theres a big bar for uncertainty but thats what we are here for - the fun discussion. I would argue that this exercise would likely require other disciplines as well to really get a better analysis. Training perspectives, psychological and cognitive perspectives, historical parallels from other sports. A fun one is the gaming world because careers last much shorter and game metas (or sequels) develop quite a bit faster and gives us great case studies on what happens when new talent or old talent collide.

To take an extreme example - Alexander the great as a military commander. Trying to diminish him by saying he would be a useless general today really misses the point of his greatness and really is no point at all. I would also point out that great outliers generally coincide with general "weakness" in their contemporaries. Some would call it "fortunate timing" or "merely circumstance" and use that to diminish a great player - for example kareem in the 70s before the merger or Jordan in the 90s with the expansion, or Bron in the east. Yet others would say "just because something was possible doesn't mean it was easy". It still takes a great great individual to take the opportunity that arises and dominate.

[OhayoKD]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that I do take issue with posters here that disrespect and disparage the older eras. Players today are literally "standing on the shoulders of giants". People have done this since time immemorial, the older generation stuck in their old ways and the new gen thinks everything old is useless. I remember going through a 90s forum that was saying Jordan would score 60 a game in the 60s lol.

If you want to truly "answer" (not that it could ever be of course) what if player x plays in x era you have to think deeper than surface level "instantly teleport this player as is to x era". Sticking to direct or pure translation just for the sake of "certainty" is fools gold because this exercise inherently has no certainty beyond very basic facts. This also conveniently ignores the fact that players, especially the great ones, have evolved their games through the course of their careers in different league and team contexts. If you were going to transport them to a different ERA why would you not give them the benefit to change and adapt?

Because there's no reason to assume they would? The most likely outcome if someone is born in a different era is they never play professional basketball.

If you want to create a completely different player and insist we act they're the same, okay, but it's tiresome hearing era-relaivists and/or "let us just assume a bunch of favorable assumption advocates" think there's some objective "meaning" to what they're doing directly comparing players lacks lol.

[Redmoon]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that I do take issue with posters here that disrespect and disparage the older eras. Players today are literally "standing on the shoulders of giants". People have done this since time immemorial, the older generation stuck in their old ways and the new gen thinks everything old is useless. I remember going through a 90s forum that was saying Jordan would score 60 a game in the 60s lol.

If you want to truly "answer" (not that it could ever be of course) what if player x plays in x era you have to think deeper than surface level "instantly teleport this player as is to x era". Sticking to direct or pure translation just for the sake of "certainty" is fools gold because this exercise inherently has no certainty beyond very basic facts. This also conveniently ignores the fact that players, especially the great ones, have evolved their games through the course of their careers in different league and team contexts. If you were going to transport them to a different ERA why would you not give them the benefit to change and adapt?

Because there's no reason to assume they would? The most likely outcome if someone is born in a different era is they never play professional basketball.

If you want to create a completely different player and insist we act they're the same, okay, but it's tiresome hearing era-relaivists and/or "let us just assume a bunch of favorable assumption advocates" think there's some objective "meaning" to what they're doing directly comparing players lacks lol.

IMO doing the if they were born in a different era is the worst way to do time travel lol too many factors. But say you take Bird and make him 23 again, I think its harder to believe he would stick to his old ways and shoot 1.1 3s a game. Whatever the adjustment and however people wanna do the time travel thing, it still makes sense to say "ok how would he look if he practiced and took more 3s".

Of course its a different player, the balance is to what degree we modify and adjust things. There's reasonable things and there's absurd things like giving moses malone 36% 3 point shooting on volume . We aren't trying to make a completely different player but a modern "Version".

The further we go back the harder it is. And going back to the original question - extrapolating 80s/90s players is beginning to get more difficult. Playstyles and contexts are so different. The thread on curry going back to the 60s is really tough too.

[Hair Jordan]

Bird in this era would be a Luka/Jokic hybrid. Curry in the 80’s is Michael Adams. In the 90’s he’s Dana Barros.

[tsherkin]

Bird in this era would be a Luka/Jokic hybrid. Curry in the 80’s is Michael Adams. In the 90’s he’s Dana Barros.

Rude and inaccurate, lol.

[OhayoKD]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that I do take issue with posters here that disrespect and disparage the older eras. Players today are literally "standing on the shoulders of giants". People have done this since time immemorial, the older generation stuck in their old ways and the new gen thinks everything old is useless. I remember going through a 90s forum that was saying Jordan would score 60 a game in the 60s lol.

If you want to truly "answer" (not that it could ever be of course) what if player x plays in x era you have to think deeper than surface level "instantly teleport this player as is to x era". Sticking to direct or pure translation just for the sake of "certainty" is fools gold because this exercise inherently has no certainty beyond very basic facts. This also conveniently ignores the fact that players, especially the great ones, have evolved their games through the course of their careers in different league and team contexts. If you were going to transport them to a different ERA why would you not give them the benefit to change and adapt?

Because there's no reason to assume they would? The most likely outcome if someone is born in a different era is they never play professional basketball.

If you want to create a completely different player and insist we act they're the same, okay, but it's tiresome hearing era-relaivists and/or "let us just assume a bunch of favorable assumption advocates" think there's some objective "meaning" to what they're doing directly comparing players lacks lol.

IMO doing the if they were born in a different era is the worst way to do time travel lol too many factors. But say you take Bird and make him 23 again, I think its harder to believe he would stick to his old ways and shoot 1.1 3s a game. Whatever the adjustment and however people wanna do the time travel thing, it still makes sense to say "ok how would he look if he practiced and took more 3s".

Yeah I don't have an issue with that approach to things.

Of course its a different player, the balance is to what degree we modify and adjust things. There's reasonable things and there's absurd things like giving moses malone 36% 3 point shooting on volume . We aren't trying to make a completely different player but a modern "Version".

The further we go back the harder it is. And going back to the original question - extrapolating 80s/90s players is beginning to get more difficult. Playstyles and contexts are so different. The thread on curry going back to the 60s is really tough too.

Yeah, again. The benefit to an indirect comparison (era-relative) is it's a simpler question to answer. But I feel people should be aware of when they are making favorable assumptions, and we'd all be better off without the half-baked moral appeals ("it's unfair to x they're ranked lower than they used to be!") as justification.

[migya]

Congrats to the generations of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, etc. You have achieved the same status with some of today's youngbloods that your generation used to say about Russell, Oscar, West, etc. Do you agree?

There's a very visible difference in quality of team offensive scheme, for starters. In the 90s, the Utah PnR offense was advanced and complex. So was their spacing. That... is no longer true in this environment. Obviously, everything is progressive, so there are plenty of guys back then who could adapt into today's game, but not all. As with earlier eras of the NBA. The farther we go back, the larger proportion of the league we find would be left behind, but still some would do well enough, and some would even stand out and excel.

It's not wrong to look at the 90s, see a bunch of expansion teams, see a bunch of thin squads, see Jordan guarded by guys who were not his athletic peers and wonder about certain things. But like with, say, the 60s, the stars were still incredible. So to a degree, someone like Ant is talking out of his ass. Which is the same that could be said of, say, JJ Redick when he was cracking off about certain things.

I think people overstate the advancements that take place over 30 years. At the end of the day it’s just basketball. Acting like 80’s or 90’s players would struggle with these modern defenses because they’re “much more sophisticated” is a joke. That’s like saying Albert Einstein was a good physicist in his day but would struggle with the much more sophisticated physics of today Ridiculous. If anything, he’d be even better with all of the technology at his fingertips. Players would be the same.

Said well. I look at the pre 1970s and the stringent rules they had; Could dribble with your hand even on the side of the ball, couldn't bump players when you are on offense etc. Think at least for the stars of those decades, they'd demolish most players, likely even stars of decades after. Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem, West, Robertson, Baylor, were all masters. With better physical advancements and the rest, obviously they'd be better.

To speak badly of your predecessors, particularly when they built what you are part of and got far less financial reward, is tarnishing your reputation and others view of your intelligence.

[tsherkin]

Said well. I look at the pre 1970s and the stringent rules they had; Could dribble with your hand even on the side of the ball, couldn't bump players when you are on offense etc. Think at least for the stars of those decades, they'd demolish most players, likely even stars of decades after. Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem, West, Robertson, Baylor, were all masters. With better physical advancements and the rest, obviously they'd be better.

To speak badly of your predecessors, particularly when they built what you are part of and got far less financial reward, is tarnishing your reputation and others view of your intelligence.

I think there is a common error when this discussion comes up.

I think there is an assumption that any appreciation of development/advancement in the modern game is in some way a negative reflection on the past. Yeah, there are guys who would get left behind today, but mostly those were peripheral guys anyway. Or guys who were never as good as their raw numbers might have indicated. Strategies and context change, so guys couldn't exert the same impact playing the way they did in their own time. Acknowledging that is simply interfacing with reality. For example, while Russell was amazing, there's a 0% chance he'd author an 8-title run in today's game. That doesn't make him lesser, that just means that he shaped the league going forward with his D and kicked ass in his own time to the maximum amount.

All of the guys you'd mentioned would be good today. Of them, Baylor and Russell would be most interesting. I think it's very clear what we'd see from Wilt, Kareem, West and Oscar. Russell, it'd depend on how his fairly weak scoring adapted, but there are more sets which can take advantage of bigs with soft hands, significant athleticism and a good head for the game. And then Baylor didn't really age well in his own time, even without the knee injury. But he was an athletic dude with a jumper, and if he wasn't playing 44 mpg and taking a billion shots with far less access to the paint, he could look different in the modern environment as well. So that becomes something interesting to ponder.

There should be acknowledgement that going back would be difficult as well. As you say, rules differences, variation in enforcement on palming/carrying, no 3pt shot. Buses instead of jets, and the like. Different rims. Like, there are contextual differences.

But again, to act like the league hasn't grown and built on top of what was before is foolish. The mistake is in assuming that all guys from before those advancements wouldn't be able to keep up, for sure. Tactical and organizational advantages are accessible to any player. And certainly most of the stars of past eras should be able to find a way. All of them? No. To the same extent as in their own time? Not necessarily, that'd be case by case. But many of them would still be fantastic, for sure.