Would NBA stars now be Stars in the 70's, 80's or 90's?

The thing about todays era is its more about skill. Half those guys in previous eras wouldnt be able to keep up with the pace or the shooting pf this era. The players keep in better shape and the less fouls are bc superstars were getting injured way too much. I remember tmac and yao would get injured like once a year. Injuries occur alot less to super stars because they treat their bodies much better and are in much better shape

 

Exactly who I thought about, when Curry is brought up in this topic. Miller isn't exactly a buff guy himself, so if Miller could survive back then, then so could Curry.

 

Someone in this thread called Larry Bird soft. lulz

 

1991 basketball

Less physical than today, defenses far more vanilla. If you don't think Steph Curry would absolutely light this kind of defense up, I don't know what to tell you.

And it's not like this is some isolated instance...at the start, they note that the Warriors are #2 (!) in scoring per game with 118 PPG. So they were basically seeing this kind of defense nightly, this isn't some cherry-picked instance where the other team just didn't D up.

 

Great shooters like Curry or Durant would still be great. Lebron because of his size... Players like Harden or prime Wade would be less effective and would not get the same calls as they do now.

 

Lol..that is so ridiculous.

 

Would Usain Bolt beat Jim Thorpe in a race?

 

The players with more advanced technology and better shoes, etc. play less minutes and the greatest stars of today complain about too many minutes and games.

You think the players who played nearly the entire game in the 60s, 70s and 80s couldn't keep up with the shooting PF's of this era? They were built for stamina back then and the heavier ones are usually very skilled in the post and would just bully stretch 4's down low. Got a stretch 4 that is too strong and can shoot 3's? Ok. Not many of them, but no biggie, the old team can go small ball too and use a SF.

Lol. Yeah. Not an isolated instance. I hope 15 years from now young fans show a video of the 2016 Sixers vs the Rockets of today as an example of basketball in the 2010's and you have to listen to that garbage.

 

Back in the day, I bet paulwtfk would make it big in a random team like the Cincinnati Royals or Buffalo Braves.

 

Stars from the 70's and 80's would be stars today. And today's stars would be stars in the earlier days. Stars are stars even with different rules.

One thing that is really different today, is that you are allowed to carry the ball. Players today carry the ball almost everytime they dribble. Calvin could dribble the ball better than just about anyone.

 

Mark Price was derailed by injuries and had to retire at 33. For you youngsters, check him out. He was a smaller Steve Kerr with a great handle and incredible passing.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pricema01.html

 

Are the refs in the 70's & 80's just as douchebaggy as today? I assume Dick Bavetta would be in his prime back then in his late 60's.

 

They would probably adapt. Just like stars of the past would adapt to today if allowed.

When people think of these things, do they really think up a situation where modern athletes are transported to the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s and just live there and ball out?

Think about this for a second. You're taking players of today and putting them in the past and ask yourself a few questions.

1) Will this modern player adapt to living in an old, rough and tough world with no mansions and smart phones and computers and media exposure and social troubles of the times, while making under a million for their contracts?

2) Can this modern player adapt to the old rules? Will this player who is used to getting to the line for being touched be able to mentally deal with getting beat up and pushed around and dealing with injuries for less pay? He's goign to have to play nearly the entire game. If he is being imagined in the 50s,60s and 70s, can he re learn how to dribble a basketball? Because guess what? All these fancy crossovers and "skills" you see displayed would be turnovers in those times. Palming. Carrying. Very strict. You were only allowed to dribble with your hand directly on top of the ball. So next time you watch a game or play basketball, watch how many times the ball is cupped and held out in order to change direction. Those would all be turnovers in the old days. Nearly every basketball player today would be benched for constant turnovers because to those old timers, modern players don't know how to dribble. Can Kyrie adapt and still be Kyrie?

3) Can this modern player stay as strong and fast without all the facilities and advancements of the modern world? Will he look as explosive running and jumping in flat footed chuck taylors? In Adidas Superstars? What about the later heavy and bulky shoes of the late 80s and 90s? Do yourself a favor and throw on a pair of chucks and try and ball in them at your fastest pace. Good luck.

4) Can this modern player be mentally strong enough and mature enough for the life of an athlete at a young age? There are no babysitters. No one to hold your hand and wake you up and cook for you and tell you how and when to train your body,etc etc and tell you to not to do cocaine or have unprotected sex in a world where HIV is rampant.


You see how ****ing stupid it is when you truly sit and think about it? Everyone wants to just transport a player from the old days and just throw him into an NBA game today and call him garbage. Well the modern athlete just might end up garbage back then if you truly sit and think of everything he would have to deal with. NBA players have roughly been the same size since the 60s. The league on average has been 6'7 men since always. You can't teach height, so there is that in common(and before you ignorantly call old players midgets, remember they were measured barefoot and rounded down in most cases, and today players are measured in shoes AND rounded UP. Next time you see a SF listed at 6'5, or a PF listed at 6'7, do yourself a favor and look up barefoot heights of todays players at those positions and you will find they are pretty much the same height.) They all just need proper time for adjustments. Of course some would crash and burn, but more than likely stars of any era would be just fine in any other era with enough time, the mental strength is the biggest question.

 

Yep, there might be a bias against voting for a little guy back then, who knows. Different era, different perceptions, it was about big men back then.

Not all of them were good defensively though, for example Bob McAdoo hardly played defense and won MVP, he did it with scoring.

Let me rephrase that, I think Curry would probably play at an MVP level, would he get picked I don't know.

 

I think that's probably more reputation of the era tbh. Handcheck was useful to prevent drives inside, but I think a player who could shoot lights out would be fine. Most Robertson or Frazier jumpers didn't depend on physicality, they were simple clean off screen jumpshots. Toughness and physicality of defense is more reputation.

Curry would shoot from longer distances, with quicker release, more accurately and he'd have better handle and speed to get to places, I think he'd simply dominate.

Handcheck was useful to slow players down a little and prevent them from driving inside, that's where Robertson would have an advantage over Curry. His power would allow him to drive inside better.

But it wasn't as physical, defensive era as the current repution.

By the way, Frazier is maybe the best defensive guard I've seen, certainly the best of the 70s, and he didn't handcheck much. Very much a modern lateral defender.

When it comes to durability, that's a tricky subject. There were plenty of skinny guys in the NBA back then who were fine, but Curry without current sports medicine would've retired due to ankle problems by now.

 

Man, it's amazing how bad people's memory becomes over time, or how desperate they tried to make up stuff to support their argument.

I lived in Chicago during Bulls run, literally watched every of their games then. The Reggie Miller, and Steve Kerr's I saw resembled nothing some of you mentioned here. Kerr was a spot up shooter, Miller ran through tons of screens to get his shots, neither of them could do much else. And you compare them to Curry? What a joke!