Which nba star from the 90s or early 2000s do you think would be average in today's game?

[NYC Rebel]

No one in the NBA is 6'0" with zero hops and can be a star anymore. It just ain't happening

Like I said before, you don't think there aren't 100 six-foot white guys out there who have a wet shot and can split the double-team? Why ain't they dominating the league?

No. No I dont think there are many 6’0 white guys with a wet shot that can split the double team. I just dont

 

[Gravity]

His shooting isn't the issue, him being 6'1" with limited athleticism is the issue. There were plenty of series in the 1990s where the Jazz needed more scoring from Stockton, and he couldn't bring it. That would be even more true now.

Again, you keep ignoring the differences in eras. First you make a vague comment about dude having trouble scoring in the 90s when the team needed it. Then you pretend as if the league and the way the game is played now is the same as the 90s. The first thing you have to understand is that the game is very different now.

It would be much easier for Stockton to score now than it was in the 90s due to the rules and how the game has been engineered to be perimeter friendly. The game is much more spread out and less physical. Guards are also relied on to score more now than vs the 90s.

Stockton's size wouldn't have been an issue either. Steph is 6'2-3 and unathletic. Chris Paul is maybe 6 ft and unathletic. Mike Conley is maybe 6 ft and unathletic. Kyle Lowry is maybe 6 ft and unathletic. I could keep going.

You're don't think there ain't six-foot-tall White boys out there with a wet shot and sharp passing skills? Why ain't none of them doing ANYTHING in the league today?

You're selling Stockton short. You're acting like there was a bunch of white boys starting point guards in the league in the 90s. There were plenty of 6 ft white boys who could shoot/pass out in the world when Stockton played too but besides mark price what other white boys excelled in the nba? Stockton could ball bro. Dude was tough as nails, could really pass and shoot, and knew how to play the game.

 

[Loose]

1 on 1 defense is more important in today's game, people overrate the 90s and 00s. Superstar players would be superstars just like before . Bums like Craig ehlo wouldnt even be useable today

 

[ISO]

Steph is 6'2-3 and unathletic. Chris Paul is maybe 6 ft and unathletic. Mike Conley is maybe 6 ft and unathletic. Kyle Lowry is maybe 6 ft and unathletic.

None of those guys are “unathletic”

They don’t play predicated on athleticism but that doesn’t mean they aren’t athletic.

 

[Columbo]

28% 3pt shooter in the playoffs and 17% on the Finals, how da hell would he be a scoring machine in this era?

This actually made me laugh. Your bringing up playoff stats to prove my point when we know regular season defense and playoff defenses are two completely different things

 

[Gravity]

None of those guys are “unathletic”

They don’t play predicated on athleticism but that doesn’t mean they aren’t athletic.

Exact same shyt could be said about Stockton. Stockton was just as athletic as those guys. What's the point of your post?

 

[Bledswole]

Clyde Drexler wouldn't be "average" but he would't be a superstar in this era. His jump shot was too broken and he could only go right on the dribble and looked at the ball. Plus his basketball IQ was never very high (MJ and Phil famously mocked him for it) and he used to eat a ton off the fast break which ain't that big now. Back in that day his size/athleticism was unusual for a guard, but now there are a lot more guys in his range and defenses would just shade him right and then what? Exactly what would Drexler do in this era that, say, Wiggins can't do?

Tom Chambers would be just another guy now that every big man has range out to at least 18 feet.

What would Vin Baker be now?

I don't think Mark Price would be able to get his shot off nearly as easily and he would be food on defense. He's too short and too slow - if today's defensive pgs got in his grill then what? Look at how Jimmer struggled to stay in the league and remember that Price was even smaller than him. He would still have a place in the NBA because his ballhandling and passing was much better, but he wouldn't be making no all-star teams and might not even start depending.

Imagine Gordon Hayward if he was 5 inches shorter. And you have Jeff Hornacek.

Rodman would be a bigger liability on offense because back then you had to have a man guarding him, now you could just ignore him completely. Look at the treatment Draymond got when his shot fell off - Rodman would get even less respect than that. On defense he wouldn't be quite as valuable because off-ball defense inside is a lot more important than on-ball defense, and a lot of those big men are dropping back and shooting over guys too. Not that he wouldn't still be an elite defender, it just wouldn't have the same value now that it did then.

I agree with it all

Besides Rodman,that’s a mixed bag,his offensive game would be even more non existent in this era,but his defense and rebounding would be off the charts in this era

 

[Rigby.]

Jord- I mean...Probably most good white players tbh. Slow footedness outside of the 5 position is becoming a death note

 

[SunZoo]

No one in the NBA is 6'0" with zero hops and can be a star anymore. It just ain't happening.

 

[ISO]

40 inch vertical and brolic

 

[Cadillac]

Paul George never had a season where he averaged over 25ppg until last season where he averaged 28 taking 10 3PA per game.

Guys like Pierce, Carter etc would have ridiculous scoring averages and overall numbers in today’s game due to the number of 3s and ball handling the non PGs do.

please tell me Paul Pierce is paying you for this type of posting

 

[ISO]

Exact same shyt could be said about Stockton. Stockton was just as athletic as those guys. What's the point of your post?

He wasn't as athletic as those guys.

Conley is the son of an Olympic athlete. He was the fastest point guard in the 2007 NBA Draft Combine with a 3.09 3/4th court sprint, 39.5 inch vertical, and he bench pressed 185 pounds a total of 13 times at 175 pounds. He has elite speed and quickness to this day at 31.

Steph had a 36 inch vertical at the combine and is extremely strong for his size, he is also around 3 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than Stockton.

Stephen Curry is stronger than you think. Way, way stronger. Golden State Warriorsdirector of athletic performance Keke Lyles revealed that the MVP's exploits in the weight room are legendary, via ESPN's Tom Haberstroh:

"He's probably 10 times stronger than what people think," Lyles says.

Exhibit A: Curry can deadlift 400 pounds.

The exercise the Warriors prefer is the trapbar dead lift, which is basically a safer way to mimic lifting a giant boulder off the ground. One of the primary muscles that it works? Yup, the gluteus maximus.

"Steph's the second strongest on our team pulling that one," Lyles says with a straight face. "For his size, Steph is ridiculous strong."

Only center Festus Ezeli, who stands about seven feet and 270 pounds, can top Curry on that particular lift. That may be hard to believe, but that core power is the secret that unlocks Curry's magic.

 

[Gravity]

He wasn't as athletic as those guys.

Conley is the son of an Olympic athlete. He was the fastest point guard in the 2007 NBA Draft Combine with a 3.09 3/4th court sprint, 39.5 inch vertical, and he bench pressed 185 pounds a total of 13 times at 175 pounds. He has elite speed and quickness to this day at 31.

Steph had a 36 inch vertical at the combine and is extremely strong for his size, he is also around 3 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than Stockton.

Shut the fukk up.

 

[ISO]

Shut the fukk up.

That cac wouldn't be as good today

 

[Gravity]

That cac wouldn't be as good today

Yea, just stick to the straight up out in the open trolling. Don't insult me with that other bullshyt. Paul, curry, Conley, Lowry, etc are all round 6 ft guards who excel despite being avg athletes. Stockton's game was no more reliant on athleticism than theres.