Skills or Evolution?

[HoopsNY]

Some common claims we hear about past eras is that players before weren't as skilled or talented as players are today. We usually hear things like:

- They couldn't shoot threes
- They weren't skilled
- They were plumbers or janitors
- This is the best era ever with insane dribbling and shooting

The problem with this assertion is that it disregards some key points.

1) The NBA's elite stars/superstars are not playing at the highest level for no reason.

Great players transcend eras. It's why Kareem, within his 7th game in 1969, could score 43 points and 14 rebounds, but also dominate the 80s, even in his late 30s, winning FMVP as late as 1985 at the age of 37.

It's why Karl Malone could dominate in the mid 80s but still be an MVP winner at the age of 35 in 1999, and a top 4 MVP vote getter in 2000.

It's why LeBron came in as a rookie averaging 21/6/6 in 2004, but can still play at a very high level in 2021.

Elite players are elite for a reason. Put them in any era and they will likely produce, with variant degrees of success.

2) Rules change and systems change

The style of play can ultimately change and players change with it together with rule changes. People sometimes saw the way players dribbled in the 60s-80s and called it boring and lethargic. This disregards the context/time where palming/carrying was strictly enforced.

By 2004-05, the NBA changed perimeter rules; lo and behold, we find players like Kobe, Allen, AI, TMac, Nash, LeBron, immediately having career years in 2005 and 2006.

Stats become inflated as a result. And it is often reflected in the numbers.

3) Players evolve with the game. If players now can evolve into three point shooters, then certainly past eras elite stars/superstars could as well.

The classic example I always use are guys like Rondo. Rondo in his first 9 seasons shot the 3 at a 26% clip. Since that time (6 seasons), he's shooting 36%. What happened? And why is someone as bad of a shooter as Rondo capable of this?

The answer is that he's not special, and this is something quite normal. Take a look at the following centers, for example:

B. Lopez (first 8 seasons): 10% 3pt% on 31 3PA
A. Horford (first 8 seasons): 32% on 65 3PA
D. Cousins (first 5 seasons): 16% on 69 3PA

then, something happens:

B. Lopez (next 5 seasons): 34% on 1,830 3PA
A. Horford (next 6 seasons: 37% on 1,362 3PA
D. Cousins (next 5 seasons): 35% on 1,097 3PA

There seems to be a correlation with 3pt% and volume. And all of these guys saw their percentages raised around a similar time ('15-'16).

But this isn't some anomaly. The NBA introduced the 3 point line in the '79-'80 season. Shooting threes could result in you being benched (again, style/system), as some coaches hated it.

But evolution, style, and volume remains consistent in terms of factors. By 1983, teams were shooting just 24% from the distance. By 1993? 34%. What changed between the early 80s and early 90s? Volume? Style? Practice?

Bird's first 5 seasons he shot just 31%. He shot 38% the remainder of his career. Magic was a horrific three point shooter his first 9 seasons, shooting just 19% from the distance. In his final 4 seasons, he shot 35%.

Mj's first 5 seasons he shot just 20% from the distance. Between 1989-93, when his volume increased, he shot 34%. I purposefully left out the shortened lines as I know MJ haters will discredit it. Fair. It's still a 14% increase between '89-'93.

So what does this tell us? We see some big men today shooting it from the distance at a high rate (Jokic, Towns, Embiid, AD, Ibaka, Vucevic etc). But we also had guys way before who could shoot it and would have likely evolved in a similar fashion, guys like Chambers, Sabonis, Divac, and Laimbeer. We also saw guys like Webber, Wallace, KG, B. Miller, Lafrentz, Murphy, and Okur.

Is it really far fetched to think that some other elite big men, particularly those who could shoot from mid-range, would have been doing similar in today's time? Guys like Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc? Isn't it it fair to say that guys like the ones from the 90s or 00s would have increased volume and higher percentages?

If lower tiered guys like Lopez, Horford, and Rondo are doing it, then what about some of elite stars of the past?

Eras really aren't that much different. There is a context that fits the narrative and to simply have a narrative without a context is unfair. I think it's quite unfair to claim that today's players are "more skilled." It's devoid of meaningful context.

We hear about dribbling. Okay great, you have Paul, Steph, and Kyrie for example; but what about guys from the past like KJ, T. Hardaway, Abdul-Rauf, K. Anderson, Francis, Davis, J. Williams, AI, etc?

How are those guys any less skilled? It literally makes no sense.

As always, if today's game consists of the best players of all-time who are in fact the most skilled and talented, then anyone's top 10 of all-time should not have a player pre-2010.

I just ranted a whole lot of nothing, but I'm curious to see ISH's take. Is it really "skills" or is it just a matter of evolution based on a context? I believe it is the latter rather than the former.

[coastalmarker99]

I have always said that Wilt is the most naturally talented player to ever play basketball.


Wilt at 15 years old made the Kansas standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals give up on playing basketball altogether after Chamberlain won 25–10 against him.

Born was so dejected after his loss to a 15-year-old Wilt that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros")




And that is not even mentioning the fact that Wilt at 16 years old was averaging over 70 PPG a game against grown man.

[tontoz]

I'll take neither for $200.

Seriously the big difference is a bigger talent pool. The Dream Team inspired a whole generation of international players. Now the league is filled with them including the MVP, DPOY, FMVP and Luka. Just on the Wizards we have guys from Latvia, Israel, Japan, Germany...and i am probably forgetting some guys.

Also the population of the world overall is a lot bigger, again increasing the talent pool.

On the skills front today's players have the benefit of youtube. They can easily pull up clips of past greats and copy their moves.

[HoopsNY]

I have always said that Wilt is the most naturally talented player to ever play basketball.


Wilt at 15 years old made the Kansas standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals give up on playing basketball altogether after Chamberlain won 25–10 against him.

Born was so dejected after his loss to a 15-year-old Wilt that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros")




And that is not even mentioning the fact that Wilt at 16 years old was averaging over 70 PPG a game against grown man.

Yea, I think Wilt's natural abilities together with his insane size and athleticism would have proven itself in any era. Does he drop 50 PPG in 2010? Probably not. But is he a force regardless? Absolutely. There's no reason to think that Wilt isn't putting up Giannis like numbers with better defense and passing in 2000, 2010, or 2020.

[HoopsNY]

I'll take neither for $200.

Seriously the big difference is a bigger talent pool. The Dream Team inspired a whole generation of international players. Now the league is filled with them including the MVP, DPOY, FMVP and Luka. Just on the Wizards we have guys from Latvia, Israel, Japan, Germany...and i am probably forgetting some guys.

Also the population of the world overall is a lot bigger, again increasing the talent pool.

On the skills front today's players have the benefit of youtube. They can easily pull up clips of past greats and copy their moves.

The talent pool being bigger doesn't negate past stars from making it to the league in present eras. That's a pretty silly assessment I think, let alone thinking that elite stars would have been less effective with the number of European players entering the league.

Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, West, Wilt, Russell, etc are still making today's league. As are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tiered players.

And population size doesn't matter because there is a small window of opportunity (if you're not balling in high school then you're not making it, so having 20-80 year olds in increasing numbers doesn't matter because people live longer). What matters is population growth through births per year. That number has been decreasing in both Europe and America. So, I don't think that argument is necessarily strong.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate

Check out the link above. There were far more births in the 1950s in the U.S., for example, than today. If anything, competition isn't increasing, it's decreasing.

[Bronbron23]

Some common claims we hear about past eras is that players before weren't as skilled or talented as players are today. We usually hear things like:

- They couldn't shoot threes
- They weren't skilled
- They were plumbers or janitors
- This is the best era ever with insane dribbling and shooting

The problem with this assertion is that it disregards some key points.

1) The NBA's elite stars/superstars are not playing at the highest level for no reason.

Great players transcend eras. It's why Kareem, within his 7th game in 1969, could score 43 points and 14 rebounds, but also dominate the 80s, even in his late 30s, winning FMVP as late as 1985 at the age of 37.

It's why Karl Malone could dominate in the mid 80s but still be an MVP winner at the age of 35 in 1999, and a top 4 MVP vote getter in 2000.

It's why LeBron came in as a rookie averaging 21/6/6 in 2004, but can still play at a very high level in 2021.

Elite players are elite for a reason. Put them in any era and they will likely produce, with variant degrees of success.

2) Rules change and systems change

The style of play can ultimately change and players change with it together with rule changes. People sometimes saw the way players dribbled in the 60s-80s and called it boring and lethargic. This disregards the context/time where palming/carrying was strictly enforced.

By 2004-05, the NBA changed perimeter rules; lo and behold, we find players like Kobe, Allen, AI, TMac, Nash, LeBron, immediately having career years in 2005 and 2006.

Stats become inflated as a result. And it is often reflected in the numbers.

3) Players evolve with the game. If players now can evolve into three point shooters, then certainly past eras elite stars/superstars could as well.

The classic example I always use are guys like Rondo. Rondo in his first 9 seasons shot the 3 at a 26% clip. Since that time (6 seasons), he's shooting 36%. What happened? And why is someone as bad of a shooter as Rondo capable of this?

The answer is that he's not special, and this is something quite normal. Take a look at the following centers, for example:

B. Lopez (first 8 seasons): 10% 3pt% on 31 3PA
A. Horford (first 8 seasons): 32% on 65 3PA
D. Cousins (first 5 seasons): 16% on 69 3PA

then, something happens:

B. Lopez (next 5 seasons): 34% on 1,830 3PA
A. Horford (next 6 seasons: 37% on 1,362 3PA
D. Cousins (next 5 seasons): 35% on 1,097 3PA

There seems to be a correlation with 3pt% and volume. And all of these guys saw their percentages raised around a similar time ('15-'16).

But this isn't some anomaly. The NBA introduced the 3 point line in the '79-'80 season. Shooting threes could result in you being benched (again, style/system), as some coaches hated it.

But evolution, style, and volume remains consistent in terms of factors. By 1983, teams were shooting just 24% from the distance. By 1993? 34%. What changed between the early 80s and early 90s? Volume? Style? Practice?

Bird's first 5 seasons he shot just 31%. He shot 38% the remainder of his career. Magic was a horrific three point shooter his first 9 seasons, shooting just 19% from the distance. In his final 4 seasons, he shot 35%.

Mj's first 5 seasons he shot just 20% from the distance. Between 1989-93, when his volume increased, he shot 34%. I purposefully left out the shortened lines as I know MJ haters will discredit it. Fair. It's still a 14% increase between '89-'93.

So what does this tell us? We see some big men today shooting it from the distance at a high rate (Jokic, Towns, Embiid, AD, Ibaka, Vucevic etc). But we also had guys way before who could shoot it and would have likely evolved in a similar fashion, guys like Chambers, Sabonis, Divac, and Laimbeer. We also saw guys like Webber, Wallace, KG, B. Miller, Lafrentz, Murphy, and Okur.

Is it really far fetched to think that some other elite big men, particularly those who could shoot from mid-range, would have been doing similar in today's time? Guys like Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc? Isn't it it fair to say that guys like the ones from the 90s or 00s would have increased volume and higher percentages?

If lower tiered guys like Lopez, Horford, and Rondo are doing it, then what about some of elite stars of the past?

Eras really aren't that much different. There is a context that fits the narrative and to simply have a narrative without a context is unfair. I think it's quite unfair to claim that today's players are "more skilled." It's devoid of meaningful context.

We hear about dribbling. Okay great, you have Paul, Steph, and Kyrie for example; but what about guys from the past like KJ, T. Hardaway, Abdul-Rauf, K. Anderson, Francis, Davis, J. Williams, AI, etc?

How are those guys any less skilled? It literally makes no sense.

As always, if today's game consists of the best players of all-time who are in fact the most skilled and talented, then anyone's top 10 of all-time should not have a player pre-2010.

I just ranted a whole lot of nothing, but I'm curious to see ISH's take. Is it really "skills" or is it just a matter of evolution based on a context? I believe it is the latter rather than the former.

Problem with the evolution theory is it makes no sense. Things evolve to adapt to their harsh environments. The nba put in rules to make the game less harsh so not only are players gonna stop evolving, they're gonna get a bit worse because they don't have to be as good to score.

[coastalmarker99]

Yea, I think Wilt's natural abilities together with his insane size and athleticism would have proven itself in any era. Does he drop 50 PPG in 2010? Probably not. But is he a force regardless? Absolutely. There's no reason to think that Wilt isn't putting up Giannis like numbers with better defense and passing in 2000, 2010, or 2020.



Kiki Vandeweghe was on record as attending a summer league game in the '80s, in which the 7-3 (or 7-4)two time DPOY Mark Eaton played in. According to Kiki, Chamberlain stopped by, and at some point, a player dunked on Wilt.



An enraged Chamberlain just took over the game and overpowered a helpless Eaton for a ferocious dunk. He then left the court, and all the players were completely awestruck. Wilt was in his 50's at the time of this story.

Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career was over.

On a summer day in the early 1980s at the Men's Gym on the UCLA campus, Chamberlain showed up to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. Brown was the coach of the Bruins back then, and Chamberlain often drove to UCLA from his home in Bel Air, Calif.

"Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at the age of 63, "and he called a couple of cheap fouls and a goaltending call on Wilt.

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim." Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, a decade removed from one of the greatest careers any basketball player ever produced. But the advancing years meant little to Chamberlain in terms of physical conditioning.

In fact, Chamberlain was receiving legitimate offers to play in the NBA at 50 years old with the Nets Lakers and Clippers.

[HoopsNY]

Problem with the evolution theory is it makes no sense. Things evolve to adapt to their harsh environments. The nba put in rules to make the game less harsh so not only are players gonna stop evolving, they're gonna get a bit worse because they don't have to be as good to score.

I think players have evolved with the style of play and rules implemented, together with different systems (D'Antoni system for example).

My point is to say that if players like Rondo, Lopez, Ibaka, Horford, can do it, then certainly past greats would too. They are a higher caliber of talent and to assume they wouldn't adjust not only defies logic, but it also defies evidence.

The NBA went from shooting 24% to 34% from 3 within ten years. Guys like Magic, MJ, and Bird saw their percentages increase dramatically. That data alone serves as evidence. And there were a ton of big men between the 80s and 00s that were shooting the ball from the distance.

There is no objective reason to assume otherwise.

[coastalmarker99]

Yea, I think Wilt's natural abilities together with his insane size and athleticism would have proven itself in any era. Does he drop 50 PPG in 2010? Probably not. But is he a force regardless? Absolutely. There's no reason to think that Wilt isn't putting up Giannis like numbers with better defense and passing in 2000, 2010, or 2020.


When Elvin Hayes came into the NBA in 1968, he played against both Wilt and Bill Russell. During games, Wilt would actually give him tips on how to be more effective, while Russell tried to con him into "going easy" on an old man.

In 1982, when he was 45 and Philadelphia 76er owner Harold Katz was hot after him, the Houston Chronicle's George White asked Elvin Hayes if Chamberlain could still play.

"Some things about Wilt, you never forgot," Hayes said. "He was such an awesome physical specimen. To go up under Wilt Chamberlain, to be down there and look up at him when he's towering up over you waiting to dunk, was a terrifying picture.

To see him poised up there, knowing he was about to sweep down with that big jam . . . that must be the most frightening sight in sports. The ball goes shooting through the net and you better have your body covered up because he could really hurt someone. I was scared.

Everyone was scared when he got that look in his eye, that don't-try-to-stop-this look that he got when he really wanted it. . . . "I think Russell realized there was no way he could have stopped Wilt if he had been fully intent on making it a two-man game. No one who ever put on a uniform could have done it. When I played him, I kept this foremost in my mind: Above all, don't make him mad. Don't embarrass him. You wanted to keep him quiet as long as possible.

[tontoz]

The talent pool being bigger doesn't negate past stars from making it to the league in present eras. That's a pretty silly assessment I think, let alone thinking that elite stars would have been less effective with the number of European players entering the league.

Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, West, Wilt, Russell, etc are still making today's league. As are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tiered players.

And population size doesn't matter because there is a small window of opportunity (if you're not balling in high school then you're not making it, so having 20-80 year olds in increasing numbers doesn't matter because people live longer). What matters is population growth through births per year. That number has been decreasing in both Europe and America. So, I don't think that argument is necessarily strong.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate

Check out the link above. There were far more births in the 1950s in the U.S., for example, than today. If anything, competition isn't increasing, it's decreasing.



I never said it negated past stars. Guys like Magic, Bird, MJ, Kareem would be stars now without question.

But past guys from 4-12 on the roster back then would struggle to get on the court now. At the very least their minutes would be reduced.

[HoopsNY]

Kiki Vandeweghe was on record as attending a summer league game in the '80s, in which the 7-3 (or 7-4)two time DPOY Mark Eaton played in. According to Kiki, Chamberlain stopped by, and at some point, a player dunked on Wilt.



An enraged Chamberlain just took over the game and overpowered a helpless Eaton for a ferocious dunk. He then left the court, and all the players were completely awestruck. Wilt was in his 50's at the time of this story.

Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career was over.

On a summer day in the early 1980s at the Men's Gym on the UCLA campus, Chamberlain showed up to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. Brown was the coach of the Bruins back then, and Chamberlain often drove to UCLA from his home in Bel Air, Calif.

"Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at the age of 63, "and he called a couple of cheap fouls and a goaltending call on Wilt.

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim." Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, a decade removed from one of the greatest careers any basketball player ever produced. But the advancing years meant little to Chamberlain in terms of physical conditioning.

In fact, Chamberlain was receiving legitimate offers to play in the NBA at 50 years old with the Nets Lakers and Clippers.

This is a testimony to Wilt's greatness and absolute proof that he could and would dominate any era.

[HoopsNY]

I never said it negated past stars. Guys like Magic, Bird, MJ, Kareem would be stars now without question.

But past guys from 4-12 on the roster back then would struggle to get on the court now. At the very least their minutes would be reduced.

I don't think we can really qualify that, especially when looking at the 4-5-6 slots. Sure, there might be some weak starters on some teams for specific years, but that can be said about today as well and some teams. Guys like Terrance Furguson was a starter just last year for crying out loud.

And if it doesn't negate past stars, then why is the argument being weaponized? Just for merely mentioning it? It obviously has a negative connotation towards, literally, 60+ years of league history.

[coastalmarker99]

This is a testimony to Wilt's greatness and absolute proof that he could and would dominate any era.


All that needs to be said about Wilt is that he could bench more weight at 59 years old than Shaq ever could in his prime.




Also, people should be aware that if Wilt was allowed to use his full physical gifts as Shaq did then he would have averaged even more points per game for his career.

As the rules of his era prevented him from using his greatest offensive weapon which was his strength


In fact, if you watch the YouTube footage of the game in which the Bucks ended LA's 33 game winning streak. Going on memory, at about the seven-minute mark of that footage, Kareem "sucker punches" Happy Hairston.


Wilt storms over to assist Hairston and Kareem retreats to the corner. On the very next play, the Lakers inbound the ball to the 35-year-old Wilt, who just blows right thru a helpless Kareem for an easy basket.

[coastalmarker99]

If you Compare Shaq at age 47 vs Wilt at age 50 it's a joke.



Wilt looks like a greek god who probably can give you a double-double even at that age while Shaq is looking like a mess post-career.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAyN1LZNXfw



If You give Wilt the PED's plus the fancy shoes and recovery methods that athletes get to use nowadays you would see a physically monster unrivalled in NBA history.



Here is an interesting question we know that Wilt was running marathons in his late 50's.


But do we know that Shaq has even run a single marathon in his entire life?

[tontoz]

I don't think we can really qualify that, especially when looking at the 4-5-6 slots. Sure, there might be some weak starters on some teams for specific years, but that can be said about today as well and some teams. Guys like Terrance Furguson was a starter just last year for crying out loud.

And if it doesn't negate past stars, then why is the argument being weaponized? Just for merely mentioning it? It obviously has a negative connotation towards, literally, 60+ years of league history.

First of all Lebron stans are going to use anything they can to discredit MJ. Attacking past eras is just another tactic. I have seen people say Bird would just be average today.

Secondly i think there is no question today's players are more skilled in general, not just in terms of shooting but also off the dribble. Whether it is the deeper talent pool, learning skills from past greats or whatever it is a legit point.

[HoopsNY]

First of all Lebron stans are going to use anything they can to discredit MJ. Attacking past eras is just another tactic. I have seen people say Bird would just be average today.

Secondly i think there is no question today's players are more skilled in general, not just in terms of shooting but also off the dribble. Whether it is the deeper talent pool, learning skills from past greats or whatever it is a legit point.

Fair point(s) but that only validates my original premise that it's more to do with an evolutionary process than merely skills. This isn't a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" kinda thing. It's more of, your skills are existent because of past greats together with an existing landscape of systems, modern medicine, rule changes, etc.

I agree it's all rather convoluted, but modern fans discredit past eras simply to discredit past eras, and not just to discredit MJ. What I'm trying to show is that just in the case of three point shooting, we have data and analysis that proves otherwise.

[tontoz]

Fair point(s) but that only validates my original premise that it's more to do with an evolutionary process than merely skills. This isn't a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" kinda thing. It's more of, your skills are existent because of past greats together with an existing landscape of systems, modern medicine, rule changes, etc.

I agree it's all rather convoluted, but modern fans discredit past eras simply to discredit past eras, and not just to discredit MJ. What I'm trying to show is that just in the case of three point shooting, we have data and analysis that proves otherwise.


Young people will always discredit past eras. 20 years from now young people will be discrediting the current era. It's never going to change.

[HoopsNY]

Young people will always discredit past eras. 20 years from now young people will be discrediting the current era. It's never going to change.

I haven't seen this level of discrediting until recently, i.e, the LeBron era (ironically it only begins in 2012). I saw tremendous respect for the league's history prior.

[97 bulls]

First of all Lebron stans are going to use anything they can to discredit MJ. Attacking past eras is just another tactic. I have seen people say Bird would just be average today.

Secondly i think there is no question today's players are more skilled in general, not just in terms of shooting but also off the dribble. Whether it is the deeper talent pool, learning skills from past greats or whatever it is a legit point.

I have to disagree. Simply because as Hoops stated, the players today get away with more stuff. Most of these fancy dribbles are carries. Its an illegal dribble. Players travel like crazy. Most of the highlight reels I see show players carrying and traveling.

[MaxPlayer]

Young people will always discredit past eras. 20 years from now young people will be discrediting the current era. It's never going to change.

Usually they're right.

[tontoz]

I haven't seen this level of discrediting until recently, i.e, the LeBron era (ironically it only begins in 2012). I saw tremendous respect for the league's history prior.

It is more extreme now because people want to say Lebron is the GOAT. Discrediting MJ's era is just part of their game plan.

Personally i give no f's about the GOAT argument. For the most part i avoid the whole discussion.

But if someone makes a bogus claim like Bird/MJ wouldn't be elite now/weren't that good then that is when i'll get riled up.

[tontoz]

I have to disagree. Simply because as Hoops stated, the players today get away with more stuff. Most of these fancy dribbles are carries. Its an illegal dribble. Players travel like crazy. Most of the highlight reels I see show players carrying and traveling.

That's a copout.

Step back 3s weren't a thing 20 years ago. Neither was the euro step. Now they are common. Dirk created some moves like the one legged fadeaway and now people are copying him. Embiid said a big part of his improvement this year was from copying Dirk.

[iamgine]

Yes some players adapt, some don't. Brook Lopez now can shoot threes. Meanwhile Jahlil Okafor is now a scrub.

If Kareem or Wilt is born in this era, they might be shooting threes at 40%. The problem is, we can't assume these stuff. We have to go by what they were in their era. We can't just add abilities cause we think it would fit them.

[HoopsNY]

I have to disagree. Simply because as Hoops stated, the players today get away with more stuff. Most of these fancy dribbles are carries. Its an illegal dribble. Players travel like crazy. Most of the highlight reels I see show players carrying and traveling.

Precisely. That's why I mentioned in my OP, a narrative without a context isn't fair. And you will find young people scoffing at dribbling in the 70s, but giving no context as to why the game was played that way.

But it's also particularly disingenuous. I can name more excellent ball handlers from the 90s and 00s than I can from this past decade. Kyrie is easily the best to do it of all-time, but that doesn't mean the league as a whole has produced far superior ball handlers over the last decade.

[HoopsNY]

Yes some players adapt, some don't. Brook Lopez now can shoot threes. Meanwhile Jahlil Okafor is now a scrub.

If Kareem or Wilt is born in this era, they might be shooting threes at 40%. The problem is, we can't assume these stuff. We have to go by what they were in their era. We can't just add abilities cause we think it would fit them.

I hear this argument proposed a lot but it's contradictory because the same people who argue this want to place players back in time to say they would do a, b, or c.

You can't implement time travel and restrict pre-suppositions on one camp. It doesn't work that way.

But what we can do is look at data and see the evolutionary process. In that, we find players adapting and we can infer what they may have done given the data and their abilities.

For example, it's incorrect to assume Shaq would be shooting threes, for obvious reasons. It's plausible that MJ would be shooting threes at a 36-37% clip, for obvious reasons.

In the example you gave, a guy like Okafor lacks the ability to shoot. A guy like Lopez had better shooting abilities, even prior to increasing his volume.

So we can infer that players of a similar (or better standing) would do just as well, if not better. It's not unreasonable to think Bill Laimbeer would have lit it up, or even a guy like Tom Chambers. They had the touch and the ability. But it is unreasonable to think someone like Mark Eaton would.

[FKAri]

I never said it negated past stars. Guys like Magic, Bird, MJ, Kareem would be stars now without question.

But past guys from 4-12 on the roster back then would struggle to get on the court now. At the very least their minutes would be reduced.

Yes. This is already widely accepted in baseball and soccer among many other sports. Also, the gap in ability between the star and the end of the bench guy has narrowed. And it continues to narrow as talent pool grows. This is also why past stars stood out more in all sports. Babe Ruth having more homers than whole teams and Maradona single handedly leading Napoli to a title. These things are harder to do today even for them.

But for some reason in basketball, the sport that has seen the more growth in the last 3 decades compared to most sports, people refuse to accept it. I think because the rule changes have made it easier to score these people have a built in excuse to fall back onto. Just because scoring is up, that doesn't mean talent/skills haven't also gone up.


Yes some players adapt, some don't. Brook Lopez now can shoot threes. Meanwhile Jahlil Okafor is now a scrub.

If Kareem or Wilt is born in this era, they might be shooting threes at 40%. The problem is, we can't assume these stuff. We have to go by what they were in their era. We can't just add abilities cause we think it would fit them.

Also, very true. This is why some of our favorite players might be a lot worse today. And others we probably didn't think much of might do better than we think. Small rule changes can have a huge effect when we're talking about the cutting edge of performance in a sport.

[97 bulls]

That's a copout.

Step back 3s weren't a thing 20 years ago. Neither was the euro step. Now they are common. Dirk created some moves like the one legged fadeaway and now people are copying him. Embiid said a big part of his improvement this year was from copying Dirk.


But you alluded to dribbling bro. The step back and the euro step are common place now, but the midrange and junphook aren't. A successful make today is still worth the same 2 or 3 points as its always been.

[tontoz]

But you allided to dribbling bro. The step back and the euro step are common place now, but the midrange and junphook aren't. A successful make today is still worth the same 2 or 3 points as its always been.

And i would say ball handling in general is better now. Doesn't mean there weren't guys with good ball handling skills years ago. But today's guys can copy the old guys who were effective ball handers, it just isn't as easy to pinpoint specific examples.

There are plenty of guys shooting from midrange and jump hooks. Even Giannis is shooting a jump hook. CP3 and Booker lived in the midrange. So do KD and Kawhi. The volume of midrange shots isn't as high as they used to be but still very common.

[MadDog]

Top to bottom, the league has more talent. But the rules and style of play makes them look more skilled. So if the choices are "skills" and "evolution" I'm going with evolution. Evolution in the sense players now are adapted to a new set of rules, and therefor rely on a different set of skills. Which is also accompanied by a different play style.

[iamgine]

I hear this argument proposed a lot but it's contradictory because the same people who argue this want to place players back in time to say they would do a, b, or c.

You can't implement time travel and restrict pre-suppositions on one camp. It doesn't work that way.

But what we can do is look at data and see the evolutionary process. In that, we find players adapting and we can infer what they may have done given the data and their abilities.

For example, it's incorrect to assume Shaq would be shooting threes, for obvious reasons. It's plausible that MJ would be shooting threes at a 36-37% clip, for obvious reasons.

In the example you gave, a guy like Okafor lacks the ability to shoot. A guy like Lopez had better shooting abilities, even prior to increasing his volume.

So we can infer that players of a similar (or better standing) would do just as well, if not better. It's not unreasonable to think Bill Laimbeer would have lit it up, or even a guy like Tom Chambers. They had the touch and the ability. But it is unreasonable to think someone like Mark Eaton would.
Of course the opposite is also true. We also can't place today's players in the past with additional abilities.

Inferring is exactly the problem. Why wouldn't Mark Eaton be able to shoot 3s? If he grew up today he's most likely thinner and learnt to shoot. Why do we even think Bill Laimbeer will get picked in today's draft, let alone litting it up. Why only 36%? Why wouldn't MJ shoot 3s like at least Klay level while not losing any other abilities?

[fsvr54]

Just look at a player like Mashburn in the 90s. No one even has midrange skills like that anymore and people are saying the current players are more talented?

No one can even face up like Zbo anymore, he demolished dudes with the mid post face up.

Standing at a 3 point line is not a skill. If you look at games back then, players had nastier iso moves that take SKILL.

[tontoz]

Just look at a player like Mashburn in the 90s. No one even has midrange skills like that anymore and people are saying the current players are more talented?

No one can even face up like Zbo anymore, he demolished dudes with the mid post face up.

Standing at a 3 point line is not a skill. If you look at games back then, players had nastier iso moves that take SKILL.


Do you even watch the NBA? Durant and Kawhi are easily better in the midrange than Mashburn. Ditto CP3 and Booker.

You obviously aren't aware of this but stats are kept about shooting percentages from various distances starting in '97. From '97 until he retired Mashburn shot 40.5% from 10-16 feet, 38.2% from 16-3pt. All the guys above are much better than that.

Mashburn has a career TS of 50.4% which sucks, even for that era.

[Rysio]

No physicality in the game on defense which means players don't get kicked out of rhythm which results in less off nights for star players and more ppg on higher efficiency so neither.

[3ba11]

There seems to be a correlation with 3pt% and volume





Boom baby

3-point shooting is all about rhythm (they're mostly uncontested shots)

Anytime Jordan took more than bailout volume, he shot much better, and he would shoot over 40% at 5+ attempts - he already shot 40% on 4 attempts in the 93' Playoffs and 92' Finals

[j3lademaster]

It's streamlining skills, advanced stats and and larger talent pool.

streamlining skills. Instead of spreading your training too thin and trying to work on skills you aren't likely to use, we will focus on spot-up shooting, defense and rebounding. In the 90's, teams filled their roster out the best 12-15 guys they can get their hands on. Now you take guys with the skillsets(usually shooting and defense) who fit your foundational piece. I think everyone here will agree Nikola Mirotic is a much better basketball player than PJ Tucker, but Tucker found his way back into the NBA by being the guy who just shoots corner 3's, plays defense and hustles. Mirotic on the other hand, is a decent spot up shooter, below average defender. So the fact that he actually has dribble moves and smooth post footwork means nothing. He's never going to use it outside of being part of the core of a lottery or treadmill team.

Then the use of advanced stats. Goes hand and hand on streamlining skillsets. An inferior player who's +7 while on the court with their star player will get a roster spot over the guy who's a -2. So outside of the maybe top 100-200 players in the nba, the rest of the 400-500man roster is filled out by guys who are the best fit rather than the next 300 best players like in the past. This also leads to better situations and more support for the NBA's star players than ever, helping usher in this new era of gaudy statlines.

Bigger talent pool. Population matters. Players who played in the 90s were born in the 60s and 70s with a world population of about 3 billion.in the mid- late 90's (the birthdates of the majority of players playing today) is in the high 5's to 6 billion. And population is 7.8 billion today, so in 20-25 years we will see the cream of the crop of an even larger talent pool. Factor that in with the growth in popularity of the sport generating more revenue creating more incentive than ever to play.

And of course, the rare superstar talent is the exception to everything.

[3ba11]

Population makes no difference because a lower proportion of kids play basketball today than prior eras

And today's game sees an evolution of ball-handling and distance shooting, but a devolvement of contested 2-point shot-making ability and the pure basketball instinct required to play without spacing - today's players are more robotic where the beginner-fprnat (wide open spacing) makes the actions more planned and a weaker brand of iso or 2-man basketball (high screen spamming)... today's players don't know how to play 5-man basketball, or how to move the ball and make plays against packed paints - this requires superior basketball instinct, but today's spacing reduces the need for this instinct.

[DoctorP]

The game always adapts and evolves to rules changes, for better or worse. There are peaks and valleys. Peaks are Late 60s to Early 70s, 80s to early 90s and mid 2000s to mid 2010s.

The rest? Mehhhhhhh

[HoopsNY]

Yes. This is already widely accepted in baseball and soccer among many other sports. Also, the gap in ability between the star and the end of the bench guy has narrowed. And it continues to narrow as talent pool grows. This is also why past stars stood out more in all sports. Babe Ruth having more homers than whole teams and Maradona single handedly leading Napoli to a title. These things are harder to do today even for them.

I agree with this to an extent. I can't speak for soccer as I don't know much about it, but with regards to other American professional sports, such as baseball as you've cited, the gap isn't as wide.

Babe Ruth excelled to such a level in the 1920s, primarily. The NBA doesn't really become a popular sport until the 1960s, some 40+ years later. And the gap between players from the 60s-80s isn't as wide as the gap between MLB players from the 2010s+ and the early 1900s.

The early 1900s was the dead ball era, so there is a significant difference between the two. And even then, there is a separation between the dead ball and live ball era, just as there seems to be a recognized defining line between pre and post NBA/ABA merger.


But for some reason in basketball, the sport that has seen the more growth in the last 3 decades compared to most sports, people refuse to accept it. I think because the rule changes have made it easier to score these people have a built in excuse to fall back onto. Just because scoring is up, that doesn't mean talent/skills haven't also gone up.

I'm not sure I agree. Baseball and football have seen a lot more drastic changes from the 1980s to now, particularly due to the steroid era in baseball and rule changes with regards to defense in the NFL. So, I don't think the NBA has changed significantly from say, 1988, to 2013. In fact, years like 1997 are more akin to 2012 than 2012 is to 2021.


Also, very true. This is why some of our favorite players might be a lot worse today. And others we probably didn't think much of might do better than we think. Small rule changes can have a huge effect when we're talking about the cutting edge of performance in a sport.

Agreed, though it's probably less pronounced when we're discussing elite stars.

Kareem was great in 1969. He was also great in 1985.

MJ was great in 1986. He was also still an amazing player in 2001.

Malone was phenomenal in 1986. He was also great in 2000.

LeBron was amazing in 2005. He was also great in 2021.

Superstars transcend era, sometimes playing solidly in three decades. Tim Duncan was All-NBA in 1998 as a rookie. He was also All-NBA in 2013. There is absolutely no reason to think that a prime Tim Duncan would not be All-NBA in today's game.

[HoopsNY]

And i would say ball handling in general is better now. Doesn't mean there weren't guys with good ball handling skills years ago. But today's guys can copy the old guys who were effective ball handers, it just isn't as easy to pinpoint specific examples.

This is precisely my point. Ball handling is better now based on what exactly? Is it that ball handling is better or are the moves more fancy? Because ball handling looked better to me in 2000 with guys like AI, Steve Francis, Jason Williams, Baron Davis, Kobe, and heck, even guys like Travis Best had great crossovers, as did Tim Hardaway, Grant Hill, and even Chris Webber.

[HoopsNY]

Top to bottom, the league has more talent. But the rules and style of play makes them look more skilled. So if the choices are "skills" and "evolution" I'm going with evolution. Evolution in the sense players now are adapted to a new set of rules, and therefor rely on a different set of skills. Which is also accompanied by a different play style.

It certainly appears that top to bottom, the league has more talent. But again, I think the evolution of the game is the context behind that and not merely a case for talent, per se.

The NBA had just 8 teams in the 1960s, by the 70s we were up to 17. Early to mid 80s, 23. Even into the early 90s we had 27 teams. It wasn't until 1996 that we hit 29 teams.

Today there are 30 teams. The probability of having more talent top to bottom is certainly more likely over the course of the last decade+ when you've simply had more teams.

In addition, the last decade has seen the era of the super-teams, which historically, are more talent laden as opposed to other eras.

So today's Brooklyn Nets stand out, just as the Warriors did in 2017 and 2018, just as the Heat did from 2010-2014. Teams are copying this format, so your better teams are more talent filled. This skews the perception, though, because it disregards the fact that teams are literally aiming to stack the deck and not grow a franchise, similar to how the teams of the past did it.

But is it really the case? Are teams more stacked than say the early 80s Sixers, the 80s Lakers, the 80s Pistons, the 80s Celtics, the 90s Bulls....okay let's forget the championship teams because that skews the perception, too.

How about the Magic from the mid-90s. They literally had a 1-5 of would be All-Stars, together with key guys off the bench like Brian Shaw and Anthony Bowie. And that wasn't even a championship team.

How about the mid to late 90s Lakers? That's another group of would be All-Stars (4 officially by 1998), with other great guys off the bench. Remember the job Elden Campbell did filling in for an injured Shaq? People forget that system ball and roles dominated the league. It's why guys like Hersey Hawkins, Nick Anderson, or Elden Campbell, could very well score 20-22 PPG leading a team, but defaulted to their roles because they had to. It wasn't because they were incapable.

Heck, in 1999, Glen Rice was LA's 3rd best player and they still had guys like Horry/Fox/Fisher. That team didn't even make the finals.

What about the late 90s Blazers? Or the 2000 Blazers? Or the early 2000s Mavs, then the Suns in the mid 2000s? How many teams are as deep as those teams or THAT much better when we consider "top to bottom"?

What about those Knicks teams in the early to mid-90s. No high-octane players, but 1-7 was typically stacked with gritty players, sometimes 1-8. Heck by 2000, the Knicks had guys like Thomas-Camby-Childs-Wallace off the bench. Put Thomas-Camby-Childs-Wallace with peak AI or Kobe and that team probably makes the playoffs in the early 2000s.

How about the 2000s Bucks with Allen-Cassell-Robinson-Thomas, etc? A lot of teams had at least 3-4 solid players in their starting 5, with some having 4-5, and then another 2-3 off the bench. It's just that teams today that are artificially built have skewed that perception since:

a) There are simply more teams than the average team historically.
b) The era of the super-team has skewed perception.
c) Free play/rules have given rise to more iso play, showcasing more "skills" in dribbling, spin moves, and dunks, which is a lot sexier than slow paced, run the offense through a system or the post, basketball.

[HoopsNY]

Do you even watch the NBA? Durant and Kawhi are easily better in the midrange than Mashburn. Ditto CP3 and Booker.

You obviously aren't aware of this but stats are kept about shooting percentages from various distances starting in '97. From '97 until he retired Mashburn shot 40.5% from 10-16 feet, 38.2% from 16-3pt. All the guys above are much better than that.

Mashburn has a career TS of 50.4% which sucks, even for that era.

Not relevant to what you posted here, but Mashburn is a testimony to my point when you really think about how teams were very talented, but great players had to default to the system in which they played.

Mashburn was a 22/4/4 guy on Dallas originally. He plays alongside Hardaway/Zo/Majerle on a defensive minded team and things slowed down as the entire league did. He took a backseat as did most 3rd options to run in and out plays and ball movement which was primarily through the post.

His scoring plummets, ultimately. But then he becomes the main guy alongside Campbell/Davis/Wesley/Magloire, averaging 21/7/5 in his final 4 seasons in the league. Clearly capable, but overlooked because guys had to do that.

Your 3rd and 4th options on a lot of teams weren't incapable. They just defaulted to the system they played in. It's why iso Joe gained his recognition after leaving Phoenix, with guys like Marion-Stoudemire-Nash-Richardson already there, the ball can only go through so many hands. These teams were incredibly deep with talent.

The only way teams are regarded as being more deep with talent today is because super-teams have largely skewed the perception. Your top 3-4 teams in the league are stacking the deck and that influences the way people view the league now vs historically.

[tontoz]

JJ had one big flaw as a wing player. He couldn't get all the way to the basket and finish. He wasnt that quick and had no hops really. Because of that his scoring efficiency never was very good (although better than Mash) even though he was a good scorer aside from getting to the basket. Didn't get to the foul line either.

I used to live in Atlanta and follow the Hawks. He was good/competent at everything but just couldn't get to the rim/line. He used to shoot this running jumper in the lane instead of a floater which was a very effective shot. I always wondered why more players don't do that.

For his career he shot 50% from 3-10 feet which is very good relative to other players. 19% of his shots came in that range.

[MadDog]

It certainly appears that top to bottom, the league has more talent. But again, I think the evolution of the game is the context behind that and not merely a case for talent, per se.

The NBA had just 8 teams in the 1960s, by the 70s we were up to 17. Early to mid 80s, 23. Even into the early 90s we had 27 teams. It wasn't until 1996 that we hit 29 teams.

Today there are 30 teams. The probability of having more talent top to bottom is certainly more likely over the course of the last decade+ when you've simply had more teams.

In addition, the last decade has seen the era of the super-teams, which historically, are more talent laden as opposed to other eras.

So today's Brooklyn Nets stand out, just as the Warriors did in 2017 and 2018, just as the Heat did from 2010-2014. Teams are copying this format, so your better teams are more talent filled. This skews the perception, though, because it disregards the fact that teams are literally aiming to stack the deck and not grow a franchise, similar to how the teams of the past did it.

But is it really the case? Are teams more stacked than say the early 80s Sixers, the 80s Lakers, the 80s Pistons, the 80s Celtics, the 90s Bulls....okay let's forget the championship teams because that skews the perception, too.

How about the Magic from the mid-90s. They literally had a 1-5 of would be All-Stars, together with key guys off the bench like Brian Shaw and Anthony Bowie. And that wasn't even a championship team.

How about the mid to late 90s Lakers? That's another group of would be All-Stars (4 officially by 1998), with other great guys off the bench. Remember the job Elden Campbell did filling in for an injured Shaq? People forget that system ball and roles dominated the league. It's why guys like Hersey Hawkins, Nick Anderson, or Elden Campbell, could very well score 20-22 PPG leading a team, but defaulted to their roles because they had to. It wasn't because they were incapable.

Heck, in 1999, Glen Rice was LA's 3rd best player and they still had guys like Horry/Fox/Fisher. That team didn't even make the finals.

What about the late 90s Blazers? Or the 2000 Blazers? Or the early 2000s Mavs, then the Suns in the mid 2000s? How many teams are as deep as those teams or THAT much better when we consider "top to bottom"?

What about those Knicks teams in the early to mid-90s. No high-octane players, but 1-7 was typically stacked with gritty players, sometimes 1-8. Heck by 2000, the Knicks had guys like Thomas-Camby-Childs-Wallace off the bench. Put Thomas-Camby-Childs-Wallace with peak AI or Kobe and that team probably makes the playoffs in the early 2000s.

How about the 2000s Bucks with Allen-Cassell-Robinson-Thomas, etc? A lot of teams had at least 3-4 solid players in their starting 5, with some having 4-5, and then another 2-3 off the bench. It's just that teams today that are artificially built have skewed that perception since:

a) There are simply more teams than the average team historically.
b) The era of the super-team has skewed perception.
c) Free play/rules have given rise to more iso play, showcasing more "skills" in dribbling, spin moves, and dunks, which is a lot sexier than slow paced, run the offense through a system or the post, basketball.

Good post and I agree with most of it. Its why I lean with "evolution". More or less, the rules and 3 point influx have dictated the skills. You spoke on top tier contenders, but I think even on poor teams, an 8th man in a rotation is the better ball player. There were many specialists back then, especially in the 90s when "goon ball" existed. You had players on the bench whose minutes were all about hard fouls and rebounding.

Today's rotation players might be redundant, but they're more well-rounded. Having more teams and soft rules is a big reason for that. It is what it is though.