Are we only ever allowed to bring players forward in eras? Because I feel like some guys like LeBron and KD would absolutely have cracked under the pressure of racism of the '50s, considering how sensitive they are to criticism in the current era. Doesn't matter how talented you are if you have racist coaches and owners sabotaging your career, and you don't have a specific kind of metal fortitude to persevere in silence. Steph's game without a 3-point line and the strict carrying rules of the early NBA would nullify almost everything that makes him an all-timer. If Kobe is Jordan's contemporary, rather than his successor, how much worse does his legacy look, where he's clearly second best at his position, and ends up with no rings (probably moves a lot closer to David Robinson, who has the same problem of never really being the guy during his era). Shaq flying coach to every game, playing back-to-back-to-backs, might be retired or out of the league before he earned a second contract simply due to accumulated injury and bad medical care.
Yes, I was considering not only taking older players forward but also current players back. It's a hypothetical, but I agree things like mental strength with racism at the time (You really appreciate how great and brilliant Bill Russell was if you read his biographies of the era, what he dealt with and he still accomplished what he did), medical care and even little things like these guys wore old school converse to play a full NBA season etc. But for most, just thinking how their game would translate across eras is an interesting exercise at times. I think Curry would still do well as a generational shooter, as Jerry West was an all time shooter but had no three point line. But West's defense was very underrated and he may have been the best defensive guard of that era. But Curry's production or percentages may likely take a small hit as well due to no three point line and the sheer physicality of the rules back then. For Kobe, I think he wouldn't be seen any worse than Drexler without championships and ranked higher. A better player but without the LA spotlight and rings his hype would be slightly different I agree. Shaq would likely still be a monster with actually enhanced defense due to the rules back then. Likely as dominant as Wilt, but it's definitely debatable due to the work ethic Wilt had on his body, if Shaq would even come close to his longevity back then. There are other factors and rabbit holes, like adjusting for pace across eras and looking at the playoff numbers for those guys. But that's another thing that can be considered. FYI, Hakeem gets a lot better the closer you look at him versus others in the top 10 as an individual player. It's really not fan hyperbole, his case is real.
Style of play? No. His production declined but he was in a system that worked. Just say you like Duncan because he appears a nice guy. He wasn't a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant
