View Single Post
Old 10-19-2023, 12:05 AM   #138
OVR: 0
Join Date: Apr 2021
Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Originally Posted by Real2KInsider
Ball Handle, Passing, Shot Creation, Rolling, Driving (Eurosteps, Floaters, etc), Contact Finishing, Man Defense / Switching

If none of those were important enough for Hakeem to learn (i.e. non-essential), maybe think about what that means...

Giannis through Age 28
2x MVP, 1x Finals MVP, 1x DPOY
7x All-NBA (5-2-0), 5x All-Defense (4-1), 7x All-Star
79 Playoff Games (1x Champion, 1x Conf Finals, 2x Second Round, 4x First Round): 8-6 Series Record

Hakeem through Age 28
0x MVP, 0x Finals MVP, 0x DPOY
6x All-NBA (3-2-1), 5x All-Defense (3-2), 6x All-Star
50 Playoff Games (1x Finals, 1x Second Round, 5x First Round): 4-7 Series Record

To suggest Hakeem couldn't learn something from a player who has accomplished more at a younger age is frankly, ignorant.

I know it's hard to imagine from everyone's keyboard but these guys are world-class athletes. Hakeem wasn't born Hakeem, he meticulously studied and worked and had his mentors, teachers, coaches, etc to reach that level. Speaking of which, Hakeem wasn't even a good passer until Rudy Tomjanovich joined the Rockets in 93 (Age 30). Unlocking that aspect of his game is what allowed him and the Rockets to hit greater heights.
Giannis started playing basketball at, what, 15 years old? I have little doubt that if Hakeem started playing in the modern age, he’d be a point center of some sort. Point being, if Giannis can learn a decent handle, so could most big men of the past if they played in a small ball era.

Originally Posted by sirdez
We'll never know if Hakeem would take lessons from Giannis because he played 20 years before him. You can't present that at some sort of proof rhe 90s was stronger lol
I didn’t present it in itself as proof. I think the 90’s was stronger because players had to play through tougher conditions and rules to score. I think it goes without saying that those players dropped into a modern age with better shoes, tech, and so many rules introduced yearly to make scoring easier, they’d do well. According to coaches, players, etc. they used to practice harder as well which shows up in availability and durability.

Remember you don’t HAVE to have a good 3 point shot to thrive today. Giannis, Luka etc. do not.

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds
This is why other posters have said you don't argue in good faith though.

1. You link to a video entitled "Evolution of the Rules"
2. You then say "can't really say evolution"

It comes off as not trying to have a genuine discussion but instead trying to win an argument. Like anything that could be remotely perceived as a threat to Jordan's greatness triggers your Jordan defense protocols. Jordan had the most trouble with the '98 Pacers, ergo you overrate the hell out of the '98 Pacers lol. With the evolution bit it was like as soon as you registered that evolution could be used to imply teams are superior today you went "hmm no, can't have that. No evolution"

Shaq is a problem in any era he plays. Thats what makes him an all time great. To your comment about today's Heat would not sniff a finals if the league had Shaq and Kobe...bro do you not remember how bad the East was during that Laker 3peat? The 76ers and Nets weren't exactly top tier historical playoff squads.

And even when you seemingly offer a concession to the modern era you immediately handicap that concession, e.g. "Of course now there are lots of players now doing things they weren’t really doing then, mainly because no team would have a center bring a ball up court or serve as primary playmaker."

Jordan is/should be the undisputed GOAT. We don't need to prop him up by overstating the level of the league as a whole during his prime.

Last point: "but we can’t factually say players evolved as players now aren’t doing what players yesterday did and vice versa for that matter. "
We actually can factually say that because that is exactly what evolution means. It means change, not improvement.
Understood on the definition of “evolution.” Sure, the game changed. But every single ounce of that change was to openly make scoring easier and points go up. So that in itself to me negates a valid argument for “improvement.” I think of the 98 spurs who lost to the Jazz 4-1 after those Jazz swept Shaq and the lakers, and I have a hard time thinking many of any modern teams could snatch enough rebounds to bear the twin towers.

I wouldn’t say MJ had trouble with the 98 pacers. He averaged 32 ppg. And those pacers at older age gave prime Shaq/Kobe duo combo trouble too. That’s my point. I’d say that team is sorely underrated because two of the top 3 best teams of the last 30 years were in their way.

Also I agree about how historically weak the East was in the 2000’s. The modern Heat could hang back then for sure. But the 90’s East? I don’t think a team with Gabe Vincent as the third leading scorer would beat the 98 Heat, 98 Bulls, nor the 98 Pacers who had a talent like Jalen Rose coming off the bench.

My main point with the “rik smits would be Brook Lopez” analogies is that you can spin that in reverse and say “Kyrie would be Rod Strickland in the 90’s.” That’s why I use hyperbolic examples like that to highlight that hyperbole.

And btw, don’t think there isn’t any accuracy in that. Strickland had absolute game. Another player who played in the wrong era is Abdul Rauf. Watch his clips and blink and you might think you saw Steph.

Last edited by AIRJ23; 10-19-2023 at 12:07 AM.
AIRJ23 is offline  
Reply With Quote