Wennington and Longley were role players that combined to make FIVE 3 -pointers in their entire careers. They would not be in this league today. Kukoc was a nice player ahead of his time. He was a career 33% 3-pt shooter. Every team in the league today has at least one Kukoc that is far more athletic and shooting 40% from 3. He might be sitting on the end of someone's bench. Maybe.
OT: NBA Playoffs
- Thread starter king_kong_
- Start date
90s in the East. Had Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaq, Mourning, and others. Had to be able to defend the low post one on one at times.
3 pointers were not seen as necessary for Bigs in the 90s. That doesn't mean anything. They could space the floor on drives with 15 to 20 ft jumpers for that time was crucial
He was the 4th bet player on the team.
If the league is littered with players like him then by definition its average. .
Lastly the leagiue is younger now they arent used to playing against grown men.
Javelle McGee is a champion in this league's era.
No way he plays 20 30 years ago
The league is full of no skill bigs now..lol..sorry I dont know what sport you have been watching..lol.
Bringing up 3 point percentage when no cared about shooting 3s is not relevant either. They practice shooting 3s now more than ever of course they are better. The way the rules are now would actually allow a.lot more players to play because the physicality and relaxing of basketball fundamentals allowed now.
Pretty much every step back is a travel, carrying is legal, traveling always been allowed, no hand checking,no physical fouls. More open space to drive...so.many things you are not even thinking of.
Last edited:
We're all nostalgic for the good old days. I admitted as much. I would much rather watch that era than now. But there's a reason the game evolved, and it's because the players got bigger, faster, more athletic, and more skilled. And it's not even close.
No they arent.
The rules of the game changed
The way the game is played changed.
Basketball is basketball no matter the era.
You guys aRe speaking in cliche.
The 2 most unathletic playets in the game are maybe the best.
Luka and Jokic
Cause they know how to play.
Luka and Jokic are prime examples of my point. Yep, they are not overwhelming athletically compared to their peers today, but few 30 years ago could move that way at their size, and even fewer could match their insane skill set.
The top 50 guys from the 90s were damn good athletes and players, and would be good players today. After that it drops off exponentially.
Jeff Hornacek was a good player, 3rd or 4th best on his team at the time. 6'4" shooting guard that attempted one dunk his entire career. That dude has absolutely no shot at playing in today's league, and was a solidly top 100 player back then. You could go through any roster and tell the same story.
A few years ago Jokic would not be the biggest guy on the court...lol
Lmao so you think he would train and practice the same in this era?
Half the bigs in the league now would not be in the league 30 years ago cause they have no low post game...
Different skills for each era. Everyone is skilled. Thats not what gets you to the league. .
If he can push off like you can now. He can easily play in this league.
Last edited:
No, I don't think Jeff Hornacek would train the same today. If he was born in 2001 instead of 1963, he would have played more basketball as a youth, and had the benefit of decades of advancements in sports science, nutrition, coaching, and analytics. And he would have been playing against competition who also had all these benefits, including a deeper pool of talent as the popularity of basketball in Europe has grown in that time frame.
All this is to say...our hypothetical contemporary Jeff Hornacek is quicker, stronger, more athletic, more experienced, and a far superior basketball player to the one born in 1963. That was very convenient of you to help me prove my point.
Jokic would have had to shoot like Steph Curry because he wouldn't have got within 15 feet of the basket against guys like Shaq. It's give and take. Think of an NCAA game where they let them play and it's WWF style. That's 80's and 90's basketball. Every game.
I don't buy the whole "the 90's were so physical" argument. If you watch highlight reels of guys throwing elbows and committing flagrant fouls, it's going to seem like it. But if you watch actual games, it's just a lot of standing around. Guys on the perimeter get tons of space. Even within the 90's there is a big difference in style and pace. It really was actually the late 90's and into the first decade of the 2000's where things got so ugly.
The 80's were completely different. It was totally freewheeling. Pace was up, they called a ton of fouls and shot a ton of free throws and scored a lot of points.
Standing around? Lol. That is the definition of what happens these days. People act like players couldn't shoot back in the day. Guys like Reggie Miller would have averaged 50 points a game with the half *** defense they play today.
First, yes, I think Reggie Miller would thrive today. And to address another poster's comment, yes, I think Larry Bird would have been great in any era. The whole extent of my thoughts on this topic have included that the best players in any era would be very good in any other era as well. It is players further down the roster that are so much better today.
To address the other point, however, you could not be more wrong. The game today is far more mobile than our golden era comparison. It is not even close. There is some good data available on the number of miles run during games that shows this.
But, one of the most definitive takes on this I've seen is from Steve Kerr, who unquestionably has a lot of credibility on the topic. In a nutshell, he is skeptical he would play today, despite his elite shooting ability, due to his belief he would not be able to defend in today's league. It is extremely difficult to defend today for a variety of factors, but what looks like bad defense is actually incredible offense and the difficult positions it puts individual and team defenses in.
There’s a reason why the term “two-way” player is a new term, but is also used for so few players.
It’s because there are so few players that actually try on a consistent basis on defense nowadays.
It’s because there are so few players that actually try on a consistent basis on defense nowadays.
It means that a player excels on both ends of the floor, something that very few players do.
A player that sucks on offense is not a two-way player either. The vast majority of players don't excel on both ends; its not a participation trophy.
I.played college basketball.in the 90s. With pros from that era
And what we did to train because of the style of play is completely different than how I train my son now because of the way the game is played is different. Not because of make believe faster, bigger crap.. All we do is shoot 3s. Yes we shoot 2s as well. But to be an effective guard now you have to be able to shoot 3s shd have a strong handle.
Draymond Green is 6-7 and can play Center cause there are no real post players in this league. He would be demolished in the 90s. Conversely because the center position has added the outside shot now. He would be more effective on the offense side especially in his early years.
And what we did to train because of the style of play is completely different than how I train my son now because of the way the game is played is different. Not because of make believe faster, bigger crap.. All we do is shoot 3s. Yes we shoot 2s as well. But to be an effective guard now you have to be able to shoot 3s shd have a strong handle.
Draymond Green is 6-7 and can play Center cause there are no real post players in this league. He would be demolished in the 90s. Conversely because the center position has added the outside shot now. He would be more effective on the offense side especially in his early years.
And vise versa on the 90 bigs . Half those guys would not be in the league today because that couldn’t play more the 5 ft from the basket.Zack Eddy is a perfect example he was born 30 years to late. He would have had a better career in the 90s .
Agreed. Think he will be able to stay in the league but more if he can be a real rim protector.
No my wife's username.
Women know basketball at a very high level.
Thats like saying oh you are hispanic what do you know about basketball based on a screen name.
Maybe.
They only have to learn how to shoot from the outside or catch lobs and set screens...lmao not much skill in that.
basically PFs of the 90s are the hew centerrs of today...lol
Patrick Ewing and Shaq . Etc… could never learn to shoot outside shots. And the biggest issue is defense. While Luka and Jovic are not athletic compared to their peers today. They would have run circles around the bogs in the 90s .
OP was referring to them in the post . But I meant to put Embidd in there instead of Luca . Thanks for the correction.
Shaq giving you 27 points in the paint surrounded by 3 point shooters would destroy this league.
You do tealize you are talking sbout style of play. Ewing had a nice 15 to 19 ft jumper.
People are going to practice based on the style of play.
Again will never know..
Well if you like free money, the Celtics will pay you tonight. Just saying.
