Ron Swanson wrote:I do have to occasionally laugh at the constant insistence by a lot of people that "NBA so much more skilllllez now" and then I have to watch some 6'1 milkman looking mother **** (Payton Pritchard) score 41-points in a game only because of some arbitrary line drawn on the court 23-feet from the basket. But sure, Bob Cousy, Mark Price, and Tiny Archibald were all just plumbers who couldn't play in today's game.
Sure the 3 pt line does that. But when it comes to skill. Yea, a guy like Pritchard is a better shooter by far than someone like Cousy. Is also probably a better ball handler while being thicker and stronger too. To a degree it kinda proves the point, a guy like Pritchard is a backup role player today, back then he was probably better than an all NBA guy like Cousy. I guess it depends on if you consider shooting a skill, because I definitely do. Nearly every guy on the floor now can shoot and dribble, that just wasn't the case back then. Many bigs could only do big stuff and only a fraction of guys could shoot near the level the guys do now.
To me the big variable on the topic is if someone like Cousy was born to this era would he have been able to hone/practice his skills to the modern style and be just as good if not better than folks like pritchard. Who knows, I guess I'd say probably? But if you straight time dropped 29 year old cousy into todays game he'd likely get run off the floor. Or take a modern solid wing with great athleticism and good shooting, idk maybe Jalen Johnson from ATL and time dropped him into the 60s he'd go from solid starter to one of the best in the league. But take a guy like Bird/Jordan, if brought up in this era you know they would've emphasized the 3 more and been fine type of thing. I'd give the old heads that benefit of the doubt, if raised in this era they would've emphasized shooting more and likely still been good.
Resident Lillard truther since 2015.