Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

[ojandpizza]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

but also the physical play, that even more so imo. .

This, to me, is always the most exaggerated part of debates like this.

I don't go back far enough to see the 70's, majority of the 80's, but I definitely didn't watch wrestling matches during the 90's. There was more physical play because you weren't risking getting tossed from the game, you weren't risking cheap techs. But the fouls were still called. Lots of teams had a more gritty grind it out style to them, it happens when your foundation is built around post play.

A flagrant now was in most cases not a flagrant then, but it was still a foul, still free throws. In fact, more fouls were called during that period of the NBA than now, roughly 5-6 more per game.

To think today's players simply couldn't take hard fouls though is silly. There is still hand checking, jersey grabbing, illegal screens, all of that. It might be called more now, but it's there. And to think a player couldn't handle it is degrading to a professional athlete. Any of us that's ever played basketball has dealt with a hard foul, handcheck, all of it. So to think the best of the best would falter because of it? Idk, seems silly.

There are ways in which this would effect play for sure. Chris Bosh slotted at center for Miami would have a tough time banging around with Pat and Oak all game, he's not built for that style of play. They would struggle chasing him around the perimeter as well however, and Bosh likely wouldn't ever be slid down to center in that era to begin with. But why would Bosh assumingely be worse? You could make the argument that less outside shots for long boards could yield him more rebounds, and getting more inside touches for that era, being a 7 foot PF, might even allow him to score more too. Possibly more blocks as well.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Hand-checking is a bigger game-changer than the legalization of zone defenses. Zones encourage ball and man movement and are typically used as a change up. Overloaded strong-sides are susceptible to snappy ball-reversal which the old teams excelled at.

No question, Wilt would not be able to average 50 points per game with double-teaming allowed. 25 to 30 ppg. for Wilt if he played now. But I do believe Oscar Robertson would be able to average a triple double. Oscar was 6-5 and 220 pounds and had every skill at the highest level.
Bob Cousy did not have the foot-speed to play in the modern NBA. In addition, his perimeter shooting and defense was poor.

The old teams took more shots and scored more points because most of them relied on running games and quick ball/man movement. There was less dribbling like you see today with all of the screen/roll sets. I believe the offenses we see today are flat and predictable compared to the old days.

[CaseIH]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

This, to me, is always the most exaggerated part of debates like this.

I don't go back far enough to see the 70's, majority of the 80's, but I definitely didn't watch wrestling matches during the 90's. There was more physical play because you weren't risking getting tossed from the game, you weren't risking cheap techs. But the fouls were still called. Lots of teams had a more gritty grind it out style to them, it happens when your foundation is built around post play.

A flagrant now was in most cases not a flagrant then, but it was still a foul, still free throws. In fact, more fouls were called during that period of the NBA than now, roughly 5-6 more per game.

To think today's players simply couldn't take hard fouls though is silly. There is still hand checking, jersey grabbing, illegal screens, all of that. It might be called more now, but it's there. And to think a player couldn't handle it is degrading to a professional athlete. Any of us that's ever played basketball has dealt with a hard foul, handcheck, all of it. So to think the best of the best would falter because of it? Idk, seems silly.

There are ways in which this would effect play for sure. Chris Bosh slotted at center for Miami would have a tough time banging around with Pat and Oak all game, he's not built for that style of play. They would struggle chasing him around the perimeter as well however, and Bosh likely wouldn't ever be slid down to center in that era to begin with. But why would Bosh assumingely be worse? You could make the argument that less outside shots for long boards could yield him more rebounds, and getting more inside touches for that era, being a 7 foot PF, might even allow him to score more too. Possibly more blocks as well.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes fouls were still called even back when the game was more physical, just less of a chance to get tossed from a game, but players were able to get away with a little more than you can now. Where the impact would be if the game was still called the same way, would be players thinking twice before attacking the rim constantly because of the beating you took. Lets be honest this younger generation as a whole isnt as tough, whether were talking basketball or just in normal everyday life for that matter. Obviously things evolve to make things easier, so its just natural I suppose for people not being as hardened today in general.

Granted there are some players in the game today that would do just fine no matter the era they played in. Take for instance Lebron, his game probably wouldnt change too much, he would still attack at will, but probably at times settle for that jumper a tad more on some nights.

Im not against the game being more open like it is, Im sure as a whole more enjoy that style, versus that 90's grind it out style. Personally I like both the up and down style, as well as the grind it out style that we saw in the 90's. What I dont like about the game at times these days, is the ticky tack fouls, and the inconsistency of how games are called. College basketball has been basically ruined these last couple years with all the fouls they call.

In no way do I think we should allow players to intentionally go out to hurt another player, but all the flagrant fouls crap they have now, is BS, its very rare that we see a player now days try to intentionally hurt a player, soemtimes crap just happens, so I just wish more common sense was used and we got consistency in how fouls are called too.

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Bob Cousy did not have the foot-speed to play in the modern NBA. In addition, his perimeter shooting and defense was poor.

Come on, man. Mark Jackson had even less foot-speed, lol. If they were professionals in their day and the best of the best, they would adapt, imo. The game is just as mental, if not MORE so than physical.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Come on, man. Mark Jackson had even less foot-speed, lol. If they were professionals in their day and the best of the best, they would adapt, imo. The game is just as mental, if not MORE so than physical.

Jackson was slow, defenseless, and overrated. But Cousy was one of the worst defenders ever in a game that wasn't as quick as todays. His back-court mate Bill Sharman almost always had to cover for Cousy's lapses.

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Jackson was slow, defenseless, and overrated. But Cousy was one of the worst defenders ever in a game that wasn't as quick as todays. His back-court mate Bill Sharman almost always had to cover for Cousy's lapses.

That really doesn't mean much, imo, since A) plenty of defensive players have covered up their teammates' mistakes in every era, and B) good/great players come in all shapes, speeds, sizes, skill sets, etc.

As for Mark Jackson, he had one heck of a career (overrated or not, lol). 4th ALL-TIME in assists and played in the league a long time. All the while he couldn't run, jump and could barely shoot.

I know it's all hypothetical but I'm pretty sure basketball is basketball and the great minds of their day would find a way to get it done in any era.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

You don't see lead-footed point men in today's game though. These guys now move at warp speed.
Jackson is 4th all time in assists because he hung around forever and because he played with the ball on a string, always looking to back into the paint.

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

You don't see lead-footed point men in today's game though. These guys now move at warp speed.
Jackson is 4th all time in assists because he hung around forever and because he played with the ball on a string, always looking to back into the paint.

Most if not all good/great players are unique to themselves, imo. Curry isn't the most athletic guy in the league but he's a great shooter. If you're good, you're good and you'd be fine in any era.

The main attribute that makes an excellent basketball player is their "Basketball IQ" aka their brain. You can apply that to any sport really.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Most if not all good/great players are unique to themselves, imo. Curry isn't the most athletic guy in the league but he's a great shooter. If you're good, you're good and you'd be fine in any era.



The main attribute that makes an excellent basketball player is their "Basketball IQ" aka their brain. You can apply that to any sport really.

The problem is, Cousy wasn't "good" at anything by NBA today's standards. He could not shoot, and not just to the degree of Jackson, the guy shot in the 30's. He didn't jump on his shot, didn't jump on his layups, that style in my opinion wouldn't fly in any other era. He's not quick enough to get to spots in comparison to modern guards, he's not big enough to do what Jackson did and frankly Jackson's playstyle likely wouldn't transition well to this era either.

Cousy gets props for being a originator. He was the first "flashy" guy. His stats recalculate to modern pace are about 12/5/2. And that's not factoring that he would literally be the worst shooter as a guard, the least athletic guard, and be playing against guards who were the size of forwards in his era. If he can't beat his man, can't hit outside shots, can't stay with his man, I don't see how he could possibly still be great in today's game.

I understand what you're getting at, but athletes progress. The same reason 300 pound men can move as fast as running backs from 30 years ago, that olympics records are smashed every year. Watch some gymnastics from the 60's 70's and compare it to now. And that's gymnastics, it's not as wet behind the ears as what the NBA was in the 50's. It was just getting started, primitive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I'll just let you all debate these hypothetical scenarios that can never be tested, lol.

[CaseIH]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Come on, man. Mark Jackson had even less foot-speed, lol. If they were professionals in their day and the best of the best, they would adapt, imo. The game is just as mental, if not MORE so than physical.

Agreed, game is every bit as much mental as it is physical/athletic abilities. Probably the dumbest comment I ever heard in this whole debating players of different era's was when I heard some say Larry Bird would just be a average player at best in todays game. Which by the way wasnt anyone here on this forum that said it, it was some where else where I heard that, but I thought wow anyone who thinks that, is a moron. Sure Bird probably wouldnt be playing much SF in todays game, but he would dominate at the PF position with how the game is played today.

It is hard, basically impossible to compare players of different era's whether were talking basketball or football because of how different rules are in those sports these days.

[ojandpizza]

Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

There is a massive difference in comparing Larry Bird to Bob Cousy though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I will say that Cousy had a good handle and was a truly great passer. He was terrific making the right pass in the running game.

The whole key to Larry Bird was his anticipation, which is why he would be just as great today as ever. Michael Jordan would be even better today, given all the unschooled guard play we see.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Bird would be a good player in any era. I don't know if I believe he would be "as good" playing now. I think not being out of the run as much as the 80's would hurt him some, the abundance of wide open deep-mid range looks, he would likely be forced to playing a stretch 4, and be undersized at that. And his shooting would be less of an anomaly, much like Dr. J's dunking ability. He would still be an all timer, assuming he would still be on a team that allowed him to complete for rings every year like Boston did.

For what it's worth, Bird says this era is the best yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Oh yeah, Bird would be the same. He was 6-9 and 230 pounds, stronger than he looked. His handle was good enough that he could be used in the screen/roll. He could post, pass, shoot, and rebound. The Bird-led Celtics rarely ran because of a lack of team-speed. Bird's perimeter shooting was actually somewhat overrated, he was good not great. His ability to do whatever he had to do to win was a much bigger factor in his game.

Julius Erving was and still is the best finisher I have ever seen. Enormous hands and incredible hangtime. His moves will last forever on the all time highlight reel.

Bird actually said that the ball moves a little better, more threes are being launched, and there is more freedom to get to the basket.

While I agree that the ball moves better, it is because of the hopeless task that one on one defense has become. The screen/roll handler penetrates and draws two or sometimes three defenders which forces the kick-out pass, the ball is swung, and a three is fired up. That is the game now.

The guards can really shoot and do so with stunning accuracy and range. Allowing big men double-teaming has forced this situation though.

Three-point shooting is okay as long as the right players are attempting them. I see too many guys heaving threes that have no business doing so. And even though some teams are shooting 30 threes a game, the fact is that scoring league-wide has not gone up.