RealGM

dhsilv2 wrote:

Showtime 80 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:
Steph Curry at 6'3 has about the same weight as early 90's MJ and at least the same if not lower body fat. I just can't even go anywhere with this topic if people can't grasp just how much more muscle mass today's guys are carrying and just how much stronger they are. There was a 5'3 and 5'6 NBA player in Kenny's era. Those were starters!

And still David Stern had to create a bunch of artificial rules to open the game and enhance these “stronger more athletic” players because guess what, muscles don’t make you tough or fundamentally sound, mindset and environment do. Steve Nash, a skinny un-athletic 90’s backup PG dominated the league for 3 years in the 2000’s with just his IQ alone (also aided by rule changes) so that shows you how dumbed down the NBA had become by that point with their hyper focus on athleticism.

Lets see Curry try and in finish in the lane against the Bad Boys, 90’s Knicks or Karl Malone for 7 games with Jordan’s lineups and see if his glass ankles hold up

No, as players started to actually hit the gym and the rules were as they were. Teams were able to drag scoring down to the point the game was going to start having final scores in the 60's.

You bring up the pistons and knicks...teams that had Starks and Dumars guarding Jordan. Both guys about Curry's height and either much smaller or maybe close to the same size as him. Curry is considered a point, not wing. Those were wings guarding MJ...guys about the same or smaller than Curry. Where were the 6'7 235 pound guys who could get physical with MJ? They weren't in the league.

Dennis Rodman was in the league and guarded Jordan 3 years in a row. Wilkins was a 6’8” Wing. Bird was a 6’9” wing. Glenn Rice was a 6’8” wing. Glenn Robinson was a 6’7” wing. Drexler was a 6’7” wing. Cliff Robinson was a 6’10” wing. Grant Hill was a 6’8” wing. Gerald Wilkins was a 6’6” wing. Pippen was a 6’7” wing. James Worthy was a 6’9” wing. Steve Smith was a 6’8” wing. Nick Anderson was a 6’6” wing. Cheney was a 6’7” wing. Tracy Murray was a 6’7” wing.

Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY and played 34% of his minutes at shooting guard last year. If Ja wasn’t suspended or injured he would have played more.

Jrue Holiday is 6’4”, 190, and played 76% of his minutes at shooting guard and 4% of his minute at small forward.

Magic Johnson was a 6’9” point guard. Penny was 6’7” and he played point guard while Jordan was in the league and shooting guard/small forward while LeBron was in the league.

Draymond Green is 6’6” and he’s played a lot of center successfully in this era. How does he compare physically to Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Mutumbo, and Alonzo Mourning?

jerok wrote:its like old ppl telling you to get off their lawns.

oldies criticize new gen so much, but can't take it when its the other way around.

Disagree 100%. Every generation does complain, but the difference was Dr. J and Kareem respected Chamberlain, Russell, Oscar and West did to pave the way. Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Clyde, Reggie, Malone, Stockton respected the generation before them.

Baseball still respects Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson as much as the modern players.

NFL use to respect the old generations as well but its starting to get like the NBA and they have the same problem. Modern fans and players do not understand how much the rules benefit the players. Tom Brady would not be playing at 40 in he played in the 70's to 2000's.

These pro leagues have decided that protecting players from injury and nerfing defenses leads to higher ratings and thus more money.

Its like rich people's kids who think they are naturally talented (Bronny James) because they get all this attention but in reality they are not and they are being protected.

Let me ask this question. If the United States is the most wealthy nation, has the most resources, improved training regimens, access to the best food, dieticians, supplements, equipment...then why are all the best players from overseas? How is Luka so much better being from Slovenia? How is Giannis so good being raised in Greece? What are they doing over there that we aren't doing in America?

Take the American women's national team, do you think they have won 7 straight golds because they are so much better than the rest of the world? Or is it because we put more money into their program than everyone else.

Why is the American men's soccer team so bad? Why aren't there these "great athletes" in soccer?

Look at the following countries that dominate a particular sport in the Olympics:

Archery:
South Korean women have won every team gold since the event debuted in 1988 and all but one individual gold since 1984.

Judo:
The 50 judoka Japan has sent to the Olympics since 1964 brought home 84 medals. Japanese athletes have won medals in at least half of the weight classes in every Olympics they’ve participated in since the sport’s debut at the Tokyo Games of 1964.

Table tennis:
China has won 28 of the 32 golds awarded. After China swept the individual medals in 2008, countries were limited to two athletes in each singles competition so that at least bronze would be up for grabs.

Artistic swimming:
Russia has won every gold medal since 2000. Two countries besides Russia have won gold in what used to be called synchronized swimming, but Canada’s last one came in 1992, the United States’ in 1996. Since then, it has been all Russia.

Boxing:
Cuban boxers have won medals in 48 of the 75 events they have entered since 1992, and 25 of those medals are gold. Since 1972, Cuba has won more boxing medals than the Americans in every Olympics in which both countries participated.

Sprinting:
Doctor-to-be Arthur Wint became Jamaica’s first Olympic sprint star by winning gold in the 400 meters and silver in the 800 in 1948.

His victories fired up the sport-loving country, including kids for whom running was often part of the school day. Soon Jamaica began churning out champion sprinters, including a guy named Bolt.


Just because more people are on earth does not make them more athletic or talented. I would bet there are more unathletic people on the planet, particularly in the United States. I don't think you could have survived hundreds of years ago being so obese.

tsherkin wrote:

Showtime 80 wrote:Did you see Steve Alford at Indiana? That’s basically what YouTuber Reddick would’ve been in the 80’s/90’s, a soft jump shooting flameout who couldn’t handle the physicality

This... is sort of classic "I just hate things and don't want to be reasonable about them" type commentary.

Redick is like 6'3, 6'4, was over 200 pounds while he played and would have been just fine in the 90s. He was a 13/2/2 player across his NBA career, it's not like he was a perennial All-Star. He moved well without the ball, was a great catch-and-shoot guy and had just a little extra to his game so he could occasionally attack the close-out. This isn't something he couldn't have done in the 90s. He surely didn't have the athleticism or full breadth of skill required to dominate, but then as now, same same.

But in the 90's they'd have allowed him more opportunities in the triple threat and high post type situations. More cuts inside with him pulling up for short curls. The stuff he could do in college. Being 6'4 200+ he'd have been a solidly built wing in the 80's and 90's vs under sized when he played. All this would have made him better.

Allstar? Nah..but a bigger contributor? Yes.

NZB2323 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:

Showtime 80 wrote:
And still David Stern had to create a bunch of artificial rules to open the game and enhance these “stronger more athletic” players because guess what, muscles don’t make you tough or fundamentally sound, mindset and environment do. Steve Nash, a skinny un-athletic 90’s backup PG dominated the league for 3 years in the 2000’s with just his IQ alone (also aided by rule changes) so that shows you how dumbed down the NBA had become by that point with their hyper focus on athleticism.

Lets see Curry try and in finish in the lane against the Bad Boys, 90’s Knicks or Karl Malone for 7 games with Jordan’s lineups and see if his glass ankles hold up

No, as players started to actually hit the gym and the rules were as they were. Teams were able to drag scoring down to the point the game was going to start having final scores in the 60's.

You bring up the pistons and knicks...teams that had Starks and Dumars guarding Jordan. Both guys about Curry's height and either much smaller or maybe close to the same size as him. Curry is considered a point, not wing. Those were wings guarding MJ...guys about the same or smaller than Curry. Where were the 6'7 235 pound guys who could get physical with MJ? They weren't in the league.

Dennis Rodman was in the league and guarded Jordan 3 years in a row. Wilkins was a 6’8” Wing. Bird was a 6’9” wing. Glenn Rice was a 6’8” wing. Glenn Robinson was a 6’7” wing. Drexler was a 6’7” wing. Cliff Robinson was a 6’10” wing. Grant Hill was a 6’8” wing. Gerald Wilkins was a 6’6” wing. Pippen was a 6’7” wing. James Worthy was a 6’9” wing. Steve Smith was a 6’8” wing. Nick Anderson was a 6’6” wing. Cheney was a 6’7” wing. Tracy Murray was a 6’7” wing.

Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY and played 34% of his minutes at shooting guard last year. If Ja wasn’t suspended or injured he would have played more.

Jrue Holiday is 6’4”, 190, and played 76% of his minutes at shooting guard and 4% of his minute at small forward.

Magic Johnson was a 6’9” point guard. Penny was 6’7” and he played point guard while Jordan was in the league and shooting guard/small forward while LeBron was in the league.

Draymond Green is 6’6” and he’s played a lot of center successfully in this era. How does he compare physically to Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Mutumbo, and Alonzo Mourning?

Rodman was smaller than Draymond and played against all those guys you listed. So Draymond would do just fine.

NZB2323 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:

Showtime 80 wrote:
And still David Stern had to create a bunch of artificial rules to open the game and enhance these “stronger more athletic” players because guess what, muscles don’t make you tough or fundamentally sound, mindset and environment do. Steve Nash, a skinny un-athletic 90’s backup PG dominated the league for 3 years in the 2000’s with just his IQ alone (also aided by rule changes) so that shows you how dumbed down the NBA had become by that point with their hyper focus on athleticism.

Lets see Curry try and in finish in the lane against the Bad Boys, 90’s Knicks or Karl Malone for 7 games with Jordan’s lineups and see if his glass ankles hold up

No, as players started to actually hit the gym and the rules were as they were. Teams were able to drag scoring down to the point the game was going to start having final scores in the 60's.

You bring up the pistons and knicks...teams that had Starks and Dumars guarding Jordan. Both guys about Curry's height and either much smaller or maybe close to the same size as him. Curry is considered a point, not wing. Those were wings guarding MJ...guys about the same or smaller than Curry. Where were the 6'7 235 pound guys who could get physical with MJ? They weren't in the league.

Dennis Rodman was in the league and guarded Jordan 3 years in a row. Wilkins was a 6’8” Wing. Bird was a 6’9” wing. Glenn Rice was a 6’8” wing. Glenn Robinson was a 6’7” wing. Drexler was a 6’7” wing. Cliff Robinson was a 6’10” wing. Grant Hill was a 6’8” wing. Gerald Wilkins was a 6’6” wing. Pippen was a 6’7” wing. James Worthy was a 6’9” wing. Steve Smith was a 6’8” wing. Nick Anderson was a 6’6” wing. Cheney was a 6’7” wing. Tracy Murray was a 6’7” wing.

Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY and played 34% of his minutes at shooting guard last year. If Ja wasn’t suspended or injured he would have played more.

Jrue Holiday is 6’4”, 190, and played 76% of his minutes at shooting guard and 4% of his minute at small forward.

Magic Johnson was a 6’9” point guard. Penny was 6’7” and he played point guard while Jordan was in the league and shooting guard/small forward while LeBron was in the league.

Draymond Green is 6’6” and he’s played a lot of center successfully in this era. How does he compare physically to Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Mutumbo, and Alonzo Mourning?

You listed one person's size here...

thelead wrote:

dautjazz wrote:Meh, I'm 40, and I started watching the NBA in 1994 or 1995, and I can assure you the players are more athletic now. This is definitely an old man yelling at cloud moment.

Sent from my SM-S921U using RealGM mobile app

Are we saying humans have evolved physically in the last 30 years? I will grant today's players better training/science but the top guys of the 90's were just as athletic. Teams are just shorter and thinner due to play style where speed is valued more than strength IMO.

Eh. Rajon Rondo is both athletic and strong. Dude was an allstar. He didn't get worse, he just stopped starting because during his career the world passed him by.

LockoutSeason wrote:

NZB2323 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:
No, as players started to actually hit the gym and the rules were as they were. Teams were able to drag scoring down to the point the game was going to start having final scores in the 60's.

You bring up the pistons and knicks...teams that had Starks and Dumars guarding Jordan. Both guys about Curry's height and either much smaller or maybe close to the same size as him. Curry is considered a point, not wing. Those were wings guarding MJ...guys about the same or smaller than Curry. Where were the 6'7 235 pound guys who could get physical with MJ? They weren't in the league.

Dennis Rodman was in the league and guarded Jordan 3 years in a row. Wilkins was a 6’8” Wing. Bird was a 6’9” wing. Glenn Rice was a 6’8” wing. Glenn Robinson was a 6’7” wing. Drexler was a 6’7” wing. Cliff Robinson was a 6’10” wing. Grant Hill was a 6’8” wing. Gerald Wilkins was a 6’6” wing. Pippen was a 6’7” wing. James Worthy was a 6’9” wing. Steve Smith was a 6’8” wing. Nick Anderson was a 6’6” wing. Cheney was a 6’7” wing. Tracy Murray was a 6’7” wing.

Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY and played 34% of his minutes at shooting guard last year. If Ja wasn’t suspended or injured he would have played more.

Jrue Holiday is 6’4”, 190, and played 76% of his minutes at shooting guard and 4% of his minute at small forward.

Magic Johnson was a 6’9” point guard. Penny was 6’7” and he played point guard while Jordan was in the league and shooting guard/small forward while LeBron was in the league.

Draymond Green is 6’6” and he’s played a lot of center successfully in this era. How does he compare physically to Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Mutumbo, and Alonzo Mourning?

Rodman was smaller than Draymond and played against all those guys you listed. So Draymond would do just fine.

My main point is you can’t judge players by their height. Gary Payton was 6’4” and would do fine today.

NZB2323 wrote:

LockoutSeason wrote:

NZB2323 wrote:
Dennis Rodman was in the league and guarded Jordan 3 years in a row. Wilkins was a 6’8” Wing. Bird was a 6’9” wing. Glenn Rice was a 6’8” wing. Glenn Robinson was a 6’7” wing. Drexler was a 6’7” wing. Cliff Robinson was a 6’10” wing. Grant Hill was a 6’8” wing. Gerald Wilkins was a 6’6” wing. Pippen was a 6’7” wing. James Worthy was a 6’9” wing. Steve Smith was a 6’8” wing. Nick Anderson was a 6’6” wing. Cheney was a 6’7” wing. Tracy Murray was a 6’7” wing.

Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY and played 34% of his minutes at shooting guard last year. If Ja wasn’t suspended or injured he would have played more.

Jrue Holiday is 6’4”, 190, and played 76% of his minutes at shooting guard and 4% of his minute at small forward.

Magic Johnson was a 6’9” point guard. Penny was 6’7” and he played point guard while Jordan was in the league and shooting guard/small forward while LeBron was in the league.

Draymond Green is 6’6” and he’s played a lot of center successfully in this era. How does he compare physically to Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Mutumbo, and Alonzo Mourning?

Rodman was smaller than Draymond and played against all those guys you listed. So Draymond would do just fine.

My main point is you can’t judge players by their height. Gary Payton was 6’4” and would do fine today.

I wasn't judging players on height. I was looking at size which isn't about height.

Rodman came into the league at 210 pounds. Now he was likely around 250 on the bulls...but he also wasn't guarding wings then.

dhsilv2 wrote:But in the 90's they'd have allowed him more opportunities in the triple threat and high post type situations. More cuts inside with him pulling up for short curls. The stuff he could do in college. Being 6'4 200+ he'd have been a solidly built wing in the 80's and 90's vs under sized when he played. All this would have made him better.

Allstar? Nah..but a bigger contributor? Yes.

Maybe. I don't know that I believe he'd be better. I think we might have seen more of what we saw out of Redick from 13-20, though, when he was a 16/2/2 guy who peaked at 18 ppg. Because he didn't offer a lot of anything else, I still think we're basically talking about a guy who was a level similar to peak BJ Armstrong, but yeah, he would have been a useful player.

Like, we saw how he could be used to score when he did play. It worked. It would work then. He could catch and shoot very well. And it's clear that Showtime's point is inane. I mean, the size remark alone ignores a dude like Mark Price (granted that Price was a much better overall player), or even Reggie (who, while taller, was rail-thin and also offered little else besides off-ball movement and shooting), Stockton, etc. Like, the physical tools were clearly very far from an issue for Redick in terms of replicating his performance in the 90s, I think you and I are in clear agreement on that.

"Better" seems a bit fishy to me, though, because a series of basic sets to get him shots don't really open up more impact due to his other skill sets (or lack thereof). At least IMHO. Might he have a season with a higher peak PPG? Maybe, on a crap team, but I don't see most squads wanting to do that.

links135 wrote:Eh. Rajon Rondo is both athletic and strong. Dude was an allstar. He didn't get worse, he just stopped starting because during his career the world passed him by.

He was fast and strong. He was also short and couldn't shoot, and he's a touch overrated because of how he generated his assists. He worked out mostly because he was playing with Ray, Pierce and KG, and even then had more impact on D than on O, and was used more after they stopped contending. He was also profoundly weak as a scoring threat because he had no range, was incompetent at the line (especially for a guard), wasn't a stunner at drawing fouls when the star support dried up and his volume increased, had health issues and basically no scoring game beyond the RA, so... there's that.

He was able to start because the rest of the Celtics roster had sufficient talent and depth that they could cover for him. It wasn't the league which had passed him by, it was the supportive team context.

is he talking about Kuminga? he will ask for max and he does not have a jump shot nor can he defend or make plays

tsherkin wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:But in the 90's they'd have allowed him more opportunities in the triple threat and high post type situations. More cuts inside with him pulling up for short curls. The stuff he could do in college. Being 6'4 200+ he'd have been a solidly built wing in the 80's and 90's vs under sized when he played. All this would have made him better.

Allstar? Nah..but a bigger contributor? Yes.

Maybe. I don't know that I believe he'd be better. I think we might have seen more of what we saw out of Redick from 13-20, though, when he was a 16/2/2 guy who peaked at 18 ppg. Because he didn't offer a lot of anything else, I still think we're basically talking about a guy who was a level similar to peak BJ Armstrong, but yeah, he would have been a useful player.

Like, we saw how he could be used to score when he did play. It worked. It would work then. He could catch and shoot very well. And it's clear that Showtime's point is inane. I mean, the size remark alone ignores a dude like Mark Price (granted that Price was a much better overall player), or even Reggie (who, while taller, was rail-thin and also offered little else besides off-ball movement and shooting), Stockton, etc. Like, the physical tools were clearly very far from an issue for Redick in terms of replicating his performance in the 90s, I think you and I are in clear agreement on that.

"Better" seems a bit fishy to me, though, because a series of basic sets to get him shots don't really open up more impact due to his other skill sets (or lack thereof). At least IMHO. Might he have a season with a higher peak PPG? Maybe, on a crap team, but I don't see most squads wanting to do that.

Better impact in a bigger role I guess is a better way to put it. Today we optimize the game for Reddick types. Then they'd have used him less optimally, but everyone did that. And he was more equipped than many in that era to expand their game.

Case and point, I think Starks had a better handle, but beyond that I think Reddick was a better offensive player anywhere else. Obviously that handle means he wouldn't drive as well, but we'd have seen more Reddick drives too...it wasn't like he was incapable of driving into space.

dhsilv2 wrote:Better impact in a bigger role I guess is a better way to put it. Today we optimize the game for Reddick types. Then they'd have used him less optimally, but everyone did that. And he was more equipped than many in that era to expand their game.

Case and point, I think Starks had a better handle, but beyond that I think Reddick was a better offensive player anywhere else. Obviously that handle means he wouldn't drive as well, but we'd have seen more Reddick drives too...it wasn't like he was incapable of driving into space.

I think Redick was a better shooter than Starks... who was largely an inefficient bench scorer, who did his best work with the pulled-in line helping him actually be efficient. So, yeah, I bet he could be more useful than the guy who famously sucked so bad in the 94 Finals that he all but guaranteed they would lose. Particularly with that glorious 2/18 performance in Game 7. He was my favorite Knick in 1994

In other words, I don't think that's a really helpful comparison, because I don't think very highly of Starks.

I don't think we'd have seen a ton more shot creation from Redick, but I mean could he have been a 3 or 4 APG type guy who moved the ball well and was able to use some of those triple-threat setups a little? Sure. But he wouldn't be the guy you wanted primarily on-ball or as your focal initiator, or as your main bench initiator either, I think.

tsherkin wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:Better impact in a bigger role I guess is a better way to put it. Today we optimize the game for Reddick types. Then they'd have used him less optimally, but everyone did that. And he was more equipped than many in that era to expand their game.

Case and point, I think Starks had a better handle, but beyond that I think Reddick was a better offensive player anywhere else. Obviously that handle means he wouldn't drive as well, but we'd have seen more Reddick drives too...it wasn't like he was incapable of driving into space.

I think Redick was a better shooter than Starks... who was largely an inefficient bench scorer, who did his best work with the pulled-in line helping him actually be efficient. So, yeah, I bet he could be more useful than the guy who famously sucked so bad in the 94 Finals that he all but guaranteed they would lose. Particularly with that glorious 2/18 performance in Game 7. He was my favorite Knick in 1994

In other words, I don't think that's a really helpful comparison, because I don't think very highly of Starks.

I don't think we'd have seen a ton more shot creation from Redick, but I mean could he have been a 3 or 4 APG type guy who moved the ball well and was able to use some of those triple-threat setups a little? Sure. But he wouldn't be the guy you wanted primarily on-ball or as your focal initiator, or as your main bench initiator either, I think.

We've just compared him to two allstars from the 90's now in Starks and BJ which is really more my point with that era of wing play. Now obviously not top tier year in and year out allstar. But these were both allstars and starters in finals type teams in that era.

dhsilv2 wrote:We've just compared him to two allstars from the 90's now in Starks and BJ which is really more my point with that era of wing play. Now obviously not top tier year in and year out allstar. But these were both allstars and starters in finals type teams in that era.

Suuuuure, but... BJ played 6MOY minutes on the 93 Bulls, who were able to get away with that because of their talent depth.

And Starks was part of a below-average offensive team which won on the basis of generational defense as anchored by Ewing, coached by Riley and supported by Oakley and Mase. Not sure that really says much but that Starks was an All-Star (like BJ) the year MJ was retired, widely considered a fairly bleh ASG.

So yeah, it's possible that in 94 specifically, you might see an ASG from Redick. I'm not really seeing that saying much that I hadn't said in my original post, which is to say that Redick would be about the same in the 90s as now. Might that mean he'd get selected in the expansion era to an ASG at one point? Maybe, but that doesn't mean he'd be better so much as his competition at position was weaker (leastwise in 94 and 95).

To be fair, Armstrong was voted in as a starter and was a popular player. His stats were never really all star worthy.

tsherkin wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:We've just compared him to two allstars from the 90's now in Starks and BJ which is really more my point with that era of wing play. Now obviously not top tier year in and year out allstar. But these were both allstars and starters in finals type teams in that era.

Suuuuure, but... BJ played 6MOY minutes on the 93 Bulls, who were able to get away with that because of their talent depth.

And Starks was part of a below-average offensive team which won on the basis of generational defense as anchored by Ewing, coached by Riley and supported by Oakley and Mase. Not sure that really says much but that Starks was an All-Star (like BJ) the year MJ was retired, widely considered a fairly bleh ASG.

So yeah, it's possible that in 94 specifically, you might see an ASG from Redick. I'm not really seeing that saying much that I hadn't said in my original post, which is to say that Redick would be about the same in the 90s as now. Might that mean he'd get selected in the expansion era to an ASG at one point? Maybe, but that doesn't mean he'd be better so much as his competition at position was weaker (leastwise in 94 and 95).

In the 90's the lessor players were allowed to take a bigger responsibility vs Reddick's era.

Point - For those (not us) who are struggling with modern players vs past, we can start with this. We know Reddick's game was much more complete with a good bit of mid range added in while he was in college. So no reason he can't expand his game, like the two guys we just mentioned.

Reddick's size, strength, and overall physical tools size up rather well vs wings from this era. While he isn't MJ, Mitch, or Drexler in profile he's right there with the smaller guards and even many wings. If we needed another comp, I'd say athletically he was on par with say a Hersey Hawkins. A bit more weight perhaps, again doesn't have perhaps the handle or quickness on defense. Still ball park.

Point - Reddick was seen as small and somewhat undersized and weak in his era. He'd have pretty average among starting shooting guards through the 80's and 90's. This illustrates for those debating the changes how a below average guy in a 30 team league would be above average in a smaller league.

dhsilv2 wrote:In the 90's the lessor players were allowed to take a bigger responsibility vs Reddick's era.

On some teams where that was needed, sure.

Reddick's size, strength, and overall physical tools size up rather well vs wings from this era. While he isn't MJ, Mitch, or Drexler in profile he's right there with the smaller guards and even many wings. If we needed another comp, I'd say athletically he was on par with say a Hersey Hawkins. A bit more weight perhaps, again doesn't have perhaps the handle or quickness on defense. Still ball park.

Right. And Hawkins was basically a 15/3.5/3 guy with good shooting numbers even if you pull the 95-97 block. He was a bit better on the glass than Redick and I don't recall there being a large separation in terms of shot creation for others, no major difference in ball handling/dribble attack, etc.

Like, fair comparison, but doesn't really sell Redick as likely to be BETTER in that era than now. 1-time All-Star, considerably more durable, similar shooting numbers, slightly higher scoring peak... I dunno. That's the same basic profile we've been bandying back and forth a while now.

Point - Reddick was seen as small and somewhat undersized and weak in his era. He'd have pretty average among starting shooting guards through the 80's and 90's. This illustrates for those debating the changes how a below average guy in a 30 team league would be above average in a smaller league.

I don't think that Redick was, strictly speaking, below average in a 30-team league during his career. He was an above-average scorer, sort of by definition, particularly in the stretch I outlined, which could be construed as his prime. Not really buying what you're selling there, tbh.

tsherkin wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:In the 90's the lessor players were allowed to take a bigger responsibility vs Reddick's era.

On some teams where that was needed, sure.

Reddick's size, strength, and overall physical tools size up rather well vs wings from this era. While he isn't MJ, Mitch, or Drexler in profile he's right there with the smaller guards and even many wings. If we needed another comp, I'd say athletically he was on par with say a Hersey Hawkins. A bit more weight perhaps, again doesn't have perhaps the handle or quickness on defense. Still ball park.

Right. And Hawkins was basically a 15/3.5/3 guy with good shooting numbers even if you pull the 95-97 block. He was a bit better on the glass than Redick and I don't recall there being a large separation in terms of shot creation for others, no major difference in ball handling/dribble attack, etc.

Like, fair comparison, but doesn't really sell Redick as likely to be BETTER in that era than now. 1-time All-Star, considerably more durable, similar shooting numbers, slightly higher scoring peak... I dunno. That's the same basic profile we've been bandying back and forth a while now.

Point - Reddick was seen as small and somewhat undersized and weak in his era. He'd have pretty average among starting shooting guards through the 80's and 90's. This illustrates for those debating the changes how a below average guy in a 30 team league would be above average in a smaller league.

I don't think that Redick was, strictly speaking, below average in a 30-team league during his career. He was an above-average scorer, sort of by definition, particularly in the stretch I outlined, which could be construed as his prime. Not really buying what you're selling there, tbh.

Keep in mind I'm not debating you, but taking your agreement and layering in where our agreement would change perception for those in disagreement.

dhsilv2 wrote:Keep in mind I'm not debating you, but taking your agreement and layering in where our agreement would change perception for those in disagreement.

Yeah, I'm just running with the thoughts as they come out. It's stimulating to consider and I'm parsing each element of my own beliefs as we go.

I think what I've come to is basically what I said earlier: it's quite possible he might have a shade more scoring volume in a couple seasons and other raw box score numbers with a slightly increased role, but we aren't likely to see much actual impact change. He might make an AS team (which he did not in his actual career) and that might mildly alter perception about him, but not much. He was better than Starks, but not better than Hawkins. He certainly had the size to be just fine back then, and I can't envision him being worse in anyway. He definitely wasn't a springy little guard who could attack with speed, but his shot would have been fairly large for him back then, and enough to firmly ensconce him as a potential 6MOY threat and maybe that 1-off AS selection.

Nothing about him doesn't translate backwards. The overly buff dudes were more common in the back half of the 90s and generally speaking at the 4 and the 5, not so much in the backcourt, so size wouldn't really be an issue for him... and even less so, given his propensity for perimeter shooting. And there was certainly all kinds of floppy action and zipper cuts and other emphasis on off-ball movement around screens to get catch-and-shoot action in the half-court, as that's classic basketball stuff. At the time, it was still sharply atypical and essentially revolutionary for a team to build its entire team structure on O around the PnR the way Utah did, that was very much not the norm and they were often poo-pooed as "system guys" as a result, even though that was a little previous of the future in its proto form (and the ancient nature of the basic PnR set).

Redick would have been fine, as his game was predicated on stuff we saw as far back as Sam Jones and earlier.