Do you think past teams (60s, 70s, 80s, 90s) would be able to beat today's teams?

[iamgine]

In 2022, teams on average attempted 36 threes / 100 poss.

In 1992, teams on average attempted 8 threes / 100 poss.

With this much difference in spacing, do you think past teams as they were would be capable to win a championship against today's teams? Either using 1992 rules or 2022 rules.

[Sulico]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.

[Baller789]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.

Not really. It depends on what era of rules are we talking about?

[Manny98]

Give them a year to adjust to the modern style (then maybe)

If not then no they'd get destroyed by today's teams

[HylianNightmare]

If you give them time to adjust all those teams could play to today's standards

[Johnny32]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.

all facts. only middle age men in denial deny this.

[Sulico]

Not really. It depends on what era of rules are we talking about?

Doesn't matter. In basic sports like track, athletes evolve and improve. In skill sports like NBA, athletes improve twice, three times as fast, because their physical improvement is cumulative with skill improvement. If you add players pool improvement on top of that. I mean top 3 players in the NBA right now are not even American.
Any rules, any officiating, today teams would annihilate teams of the past. Especially if it's teams from last century.

[FKAri]

Doesn't matter. In basic sports like track, athletes evolve and improve. In skill sports like NBA, athletes improve twice, three times as fast, because their physical improvement is cumulative with skill improvement. If you add players pool improvement on top of that. I mean top 3 players in the NBA right now are not even American.
Any rules, any officiating, today teams would annihilate teams of the past. Especially if it's teams from last century.

A part of me doesn't want to admit this. I loved basketball in the 90s and hate today's game. It's mostly true that if you time travel those teams to the present, they'd be destroyed. If you give them time to prepare, well they probably still get destroyed.

But if you take the individual players and give THEM time to prepare then they could still be useful. Though most players perform slightly worse since they've spent their lives honing their game according to how basketball is no longer played. A few players though, actually perform better today than they did back then.

[8Ball]

Not a chance in hell.


No shooters on your team = dead meat in today's game.

[8Ball]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.

This is correct.

Back then you didn't even need to have 1 shooter to be successful, maybe 1.

Now you need minimum 4 shooters on the court that can knock down 3s.

[8Ball]

Give them a year to adjust to the modern style (then maybe)

If not then no they'd get destroyed by today's teams

It takes more than a 1 year to learn to knock down 3s. They will end up like Westbrook where the game literally passing him by because he can't shoot 3s.

[theman93]

https://twitter.com/HallSimpleton/status/1514298534173954048?s=20&t=Aj02QPT9euakEczihdMd7w

https://twitter.com/HallSimpleton/status/1511546794106261507?s=20&t=Aj02QPT9euakEczihdMd7w

[theman93]

If they could carry/travel like the teams of today yes. The modern day crossover/euro step was illegal.

[97 bulls]

If you give them time to adjust all those teams could play to today's standards

This logic has always been understood until today. Athletes build off of the previous generations athletes. As in all aspects of life. And guess what? 20 years from now, tomorrow's Athlete will be better than today's.

[97 bulls]

If they could carry/travel like the teams of today yes. The modern day crossover/euro step was illegal.

This is facts.

[John_Connor]

yes easily. but not with today's nba rules... under FIBA rules.. easily


guys like lillard, Trae, harden, curry become obsolete with any kind of physicality

[FultzNationRISE]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.


It's this.

Certainly there are guys from past eras who would be transplantable into the modern era if they grew up with today's training. But many of them would not.

The talent pool is not only more broad within America, but now completely international. You're just inevitably going to have a much higher level of talent available. It's really that simple, IMO.

[Nowoco]

Not a chance. The players today, even the role players, are more athletic, more skilled and much better shooters. Even the ball movement today would have most 90s defenders on their ass. It was much tougher back then but it doesnt matter how tough you are if you have guards running rings around you and bigs shooting from anywhere.

[John_Connor]

Not a chance. The players today, even the role players, are more athletic, more skilled and much better shooters. Even the ball movement today would have most 90s defenders on their ass. It was much tougher back then but it doesnt matter how tough you are if you have guards running rings around you and bigs shooting from anywhere.

all the skills go out the window in the playoffs every year and the teams that try the hardest on defense and attack the basket/get to the line/get offensive rebounds, hit mid range shots and have dynamic athletic wings always end up winning. all the small skilled guys end up flaming out when the refs start letting things go.


the playoffs always end up being reffed differently. and yes teams as a whole shoot and make way more threes but that's because of teams leaving guys open from double teams. the defenders of the 90s didn't need to double and took pride in 1 on 1 matchups and getting in your face with physical defense.

with FIBA rules it's even harder to go off. just see how FIBA individual numbers look compared to the nba. the best guys average like 15 points on the top teams usually. in Olympic play it's even worse. with nba rules those Spanish teams get beat by 20. but they always hung in till the end and other teams beat the US in 2002, 2004, 2006 and nearly in 2008 and 2012

the rules make a ton of difference. today's players have major flaws when it comes to playing through contact. they just flop and fling the ball at the net. it's pathetic. in the 90s they would look ridiculous going around screens and jumping backwards into guys


today's game is trash and everyone here knows it... lebrons dog shit with zero mobility and he just walks to the rim and gets open looks all game putting up 30ppg.. imagine lebron in a real era. he would be averaging 18ppg at this stage in his decline

Trae Young just led the league in points and assists lmao


get a f*cking clue.. all of you are dumb as hell

[Kblaze8855]

The rules would decide it. The rules literally strip away the go to moves of some of the players in question. Barkley isn’t Barkley with a 5 second backdown rule. The difference made by things like illegal defense or at times….illegal offense(which I’m sure most here don’t remember). Many of the “complicated” modern defenses require things illegal defense wouldn’t allow.

It totally depends on rules. Whoever you move to the others rules would be at a crazy initial disadvantage.

[RRR3]

What a surprise the most stupid take in the thread is by kenny

[j3lademaster]

The talent pool is bigger, offensive schemes are more sofisticated, average skill level is higher, defense is smarter, etc.
Teams from other eras would be mostly swept.Defense is more sophisticated, too. Against 5 shooters, you can't just plant a rim protector under the basket and keep funneling into him.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Overall modern players will always be better than players of the past. Just don't act like the current Magic would beat the '96 Bulls.

[John_Connor]

Overall modern players will always be better than players of the past. Just don't act like the current Magic would beat the '96 Bulls.

better is subjective though. better for today's regular season rules? sure

but let's not act like Trae Young wouldnt end up in the hospital if he tried his bullshit in the 80s or 90s

[ShawkFactory]

Yea it’s tough. With people grabbing and elbowing and checking Trae all game? Don’t think he’d be as successful as he is now.

But there’s also plenty of dudes then who wouldn’t be in the league now so it goes both ways.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yea it’s tough. With people grabbing and elbowing and checking Trae all game? Don’t think he’d be as successful as he is now.

But there’s also plenty of dudes then who wouldn’t be in the league now so it goes both ways.

There are a few outliers of history: Wilt and Shaq would be a strong or stronger than anyone, MJ would be as athletic as anyone. But overall players are the biggest and strongest that they have ever been. The average height is always going up. If you put James, Tatum, Giannis, etc. In 1993 they would be shocked by how much players were allowed to hit and hold them. But they would be getting this physical treatment from players smaller and weaker than they normally face. If Lebron James is allowed to be a physical defender who is going to score on that dude? Especially in his prime. Let 6'10 Tatum push a 6'6 215lb sf the way he wants them to go and that player is having one of the worst nights of his life. Under past rules vs past players modern stars may not score as much but their physical advantages would be even more pronounced leading to a greater advantage. Sure it would be a little harder to average 27 but you're now in a league where the average team scores 105 instead of 111 (and the average at the turn of the century really cratered). Bottom line the increased physicality is going to benefit the bigger and stronger guy.

[Baller789]

Doesn't matter. In basic sports like track, athletes evolve and improve. In skill sports like NBA, athletes improve twice, three times as fast, because their physical improvement is cumulative with skill improvement. If you add players pool improvement on top of that. I mean top 3 players in the NBA right now are not even American.
Any rules, any officiating, today teams would annihilate teams of the past. Especially if it's teams from last century.

So youre saying a lot of boxers today would beat up prime Mike Tyson?

[Baller789]

It takes more than a 1 year to learn to knock down 3s. They will end up like Westbrook where the game literally passing him by because he can't shoot 3s.

What if they played with the 50's rules?

[Shooter]

Not a chance in hell.


No shooters on your team = dead meat in today's game.

Did you say Shooter?

Bang!!!

[Baller789]

Did you say Shooter?

Bang!!!

Oh look its one of the troll alts :roll:

[Sulico]

So youre saying a lot of boxers today would beat up prime Mike Tyson?

I have no idea. Professional boxing is not a sport, it's a show. In real sport, everybody compete with each other. In boxing promoters decide who fights, who ducks, and I have a suspicion, who wins.
And in "amateur" boxing, Tyson was beaten regularly by his peers, so why bring up today's boxers?

[Round Mound]

Absolutley no one would beat a prime Mike Tyson today. And he was from the 80s and early 90's. Today there is better role player shooters and overall 3-point shooters. Mid Range game? post play? etc nope. Its different rules today's rules are designed to be free flowing and no contact or girthy wide bodied players needed. Hard fouls are all flagrants today. It would all depend on the rules.

[Shooter]

The NBA had people in the 90s that could not dribble with both hands. And you're asking about the 70s?!

[Anfernee]

The rules would decide it. The rules literally strip away the go to moves of some of the players in question. Barkley isn’t Barkley with a 5 second backdown rule. The difference made by things like illegal defense or at times….illegal offense(which I’m sure most here don’t remember). Many of the “complicated” modern defenses require things illegal defense wouldn’t allow.

It totally depends on rules. Whoever you move to the others rules would be at a crazy initial disadvantage.

This is correct.

A lot of you are dismissing the importance of the rules and blabbing about things like 3 point shooting. There was no 3 point line until the 79-80 season. So if your favorite modern 3 point shooting team is playing by 60's and 70's rules, they would not have this advantage. The rules matter a lot.

[Baller789]

I have no idea. Professional boxing is not a sport, it's a show. In real sport, everybody compete with each other. In boxing promoters decide who fights, who ducks, and I have a suspicion, who wins.
And in "amateur" boxing, Tyson was beaten regularly by his peers, so why bring up today's boxers?

Why don't you talk you answer the question instead of deflecting? After all we aren't talking about amateur ballers.

[Sulico]

Why don't you talk you answer the question instead of deflecting? After all we aren't talking about amateur ballers.

I did answer it. Tyson was beaten numerous times by his peers, I don't see why wouldn't he be beaten by today's boxers. But that is not relevant in this discussion since professional boxing is more of a show than a competition. And NBA is a competition and one of most pure ones too.

[Baller789]

I did answer it. Tyson was beaten numerous times by his peers, I don't see why wouldn't he be beaten by today's boxers. But that is not relevant in this discussion since professional boxing is more of a show than a competition. And NBA is a competition and one of most pure ones too.

But my question was:

"So youre saying a lot of boxers today would beat up prime Mike Tyson?"

So which of these many modern boxers would beat prime Mike Tyson? Give me 5. And let me reiterate, PRIME Mike Tyson.

Oh it's releveant because your argument is basically bigger, faster stronger bs.

And it's the 1st time I heard that boxing isn't a sport. Only in Insidehoops :oldlol:

[Baller789]

Absolutley no one would beat a prime Mike Tyson today. And he was from the 80s and early 90's. Today there is better role player shooters and overall 3-point shooters. Mid Range game? post play? etc nope. Its different rules today's rules are designed to be free flowing and no contact or girthy wide bodied players needed. Hard fouls are all flagrants today. It would all depend on the rules.

This. No one with a modest IQ would have any of the modern heavyweights beating a prime Tyson. And going by a punchers chance is asinine for thahat argument.

This Sulico guys says lots of his peers beat up Mike. He probably got confused and mixed up post prime Mike Tyson :lol

[John_Connor]

Absolutley no one would beat a prime Mike Tyson today. And he was from the 80s and early 90's. Today there is better role player shooters and overall 3-point shooters. Mid Range game? post play? etc nope. Its different rules today's rules are designed to be free flowing and no contact or girthy wide bodied players needed. Hard fouls are all flagrants today. It would all depend on the rules.

tyson fury would give mike tyson the same problems Lennox Lewis gave him.


boxing rules haven't really changed though. weird comparison

[8Ball]

The Klitschko brothers would smash Mike Tyson into the ground and Mike Tyson is my favourite boxer of all time.


Mike Tyson would get killed as a heavy weight in the last 20 years of boxing.

5'10" guys have huge problems vs strong, skilled and tall heavy weights.

[Bronbron23]

In 2022, teams on average attempted 36 threes / 100 poss.

In 1992, teams on average attempted 8 threes / 100 poss.

With this much difference in spacing, do you think past teams as they were would be capable to win a championship against today's teams? Either using 1992 rules or 2022 rules.

Are we talking with Hindsight or if we just time traveled those teams to now days? Yall dummies do know if these dudes came up in the 80's or 90's they'd be shooting the same amount as everyone else right? Please tell me yall not this stupid

[Johnny32]

The Klitschko brothers would smash Mike Tyson into the ground and Mike Tyson is my favourite boxer of all time.


Mike Tyson would get killed as a heavy weight in the last 20 years of boxing.

5'10" guys have huge problems vs strong, skilled and tall heavy weights.

peak tyson probably kos every name you typed.

[j3lademaster]

peak tyson probably kos every name you typed.He literally only typed the Klitschko brothers.

[Baller789]

tyson fury would give mike tyson the same problems Lennox Lewis gave him.


boxing rules haven't really changed though. weird comparison

Again, did Lewis fight prime Tyson?

Reading comprehension fails. :banghead:

[kentatm]

The rules would decide it. The rules literally strip away the go to moves of some of the players in question. Barkley isn’t Barkley with a 5 second backdown rule. The difference made by things like illegal defense or at times….illegal offense(which I’m sure most here don’t remember). Many of the “complicated” modern defenses require things illegal defense wouldn’t allow.

It totally depends on rules. Whoever you move to the others rules would be at a crazy initial disadvantage.

This.

A modern rule set causes the old school teams to get obliterated.

But if we went back to say 80's rules things would likely be quite different.

[Baller789]

A lot of these 'modern' 3 point soft Euros would get exposed for their poor man to man D with illegal defense on.

Case and point, current Lebron would give his man career high's if he's not allowed to play zone because of his being a sieve on defense.

Not saying that old teams would beat modern teams, but they are not equipped to play on older rules.

Kyries handles would always be carries if he played back in the 50's for example.

[coastalmarker99]

It all depends on the rules.


The 1967 76ers would own teams such as the 2017 Cavs if they played against each other with no three-point line.



Here is a fun fact that 1967 76ers team started 37-3 off Wilt's 24.6ppg with 69.5% FG.


Can you imagine what Wilt would do to that undersized Cavs team whose best bigs were TT and Love?


He would ****ing feast.

[Baller789]

It all depends on the rules.


The 1967 76ers would own teams such as the 2017 Cavs if they played against each other with no three-point line.



Here is a fun fact that 1967 76ers team started 37-3 off Wilt's 24.6ppg with 69.5% FG.


Can you imagine what Wilt would do to that undersized Cavs team whose best bigs were TT and Love?


He would ****ing feast.

But that goes against bigger, faster, stronger and human evolution.

:milton

[Johnny32]

He literally only typed the Klitschko brothers.

lol i was pretty high but yeah meant any boxing name i read. lewis, klit bros, fury, all get koed by absolute peak tyson in my former professional sports handicapper opinion.

[Sulico]

But my question was:

"So youre saying a lot of boxers today would beat up prime Mike Tyson?"

So which of these many modern boxers would beat prime Mike Tyson? Give me 5. And let me reiterate, PRIME Mike Tyson.

Oh it's releveant because your argument is basically bigger, faster stronger bs.

And it's the 1st time I heard that boxing isn't a sport. Only in Insidehoops :oldlol:

Why this obsession with Tyson? He was knocked out in his prime by some journeyman, wasn't he? And then later, when he was 30 , which is absolutely prime for boxers, he lost 2 times in a row to Holyfield. So my answer is - anybody from today's top 5, whoever that is, I don't follow boxing that much. And that was my question, why wouldn't today's boxers beat him, if his peers were beating him. He was beating boxers that don't have their own Wikipedia pages in the first round, and the second he met real fighter he lost twice.

[John8204]

I think most past teams would be more successful than teams from today. Guys had shorter careers because the games were tougher and their were fewer roster spots. I don't know which teams today could physically hang with the tough man teams of the 50/60 or the super teams of the 80/90

[r0drig0lac]

yep

[coastalmarker99]

I think most past teams would be more successful than teams from today. Guys had shorter careers because the games were tougher and their were fewer roster spots. I don't know which teams today could physically hang with the tough man teams of the 50/60 or the super teams of the 80/90


Back in the old days players were expected to gut it out under worse playing conditions, as Luke Jackson did when he played the entire 1966 season on a broken leg, casually shrugging it off as shin splints.



There were times during the NY series when the hobbled 1968 Sixers were getting killed on the boards, as Bellamy & Reed were feasting on the offensive glass.

They played Games 4, 5, and 6 consecutively.

No days off in between.


DELAWARE COUNTY - April 13, 1968

Club Rated 'Most Courageous' By Hannum as Injuries Mount

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The Philadelphia 76ers could be billed as the best touring troupe In basketball.

All they need is a doctor to complete the cast.

Going into the fourth game Sunday of their National Basketball Association playoff series with the Boston Celtics, the 76ers are hurting from head to toe.

So what's new? Injuries have plagued the defending NBA champions since the opening of the season.

"Alex Hannum says this is the most courageous team he's ever coached," says Harvey Pollack, the 76ers' statistician.

"The locker room looks like a hospital ward every time I walk in."

Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).

[Baller789]

Why this obsession with Tyson? He was knocked out in his prime by some journeyman, wasn't he? And then later, when he was 30 , which is absolutely prime for boxers, he lost 2 times in a row to Holyfield. So my answer is - anybody from today's top 5, whoever that is, I don't follow boxing that much. And that was my question, why wouldn't today's boxers beat him, if his peers were beating him. He was beating boxers that don't have their own Wikipedia pages in the first round, and the second he met real fighter he lost twice.

Another dishonest post. :lol. We could go Muhammad Ali or R. Robinson if you like.

Most boxers prime when 30? When we all know that Iron Mike's prime was in his early 20's. Not all boxers peak at the same time.
Does my point keep getting over you head or what? Yet you keep mentioning his fights past his prime and even post prison lmao!
Anyone one the top 5? Yet you admit you don't follow boxing. So I guess your opinion just got pulled out of you @rs3.

Back on topic, I couldn't imagine the player's faces when they turn the ball over and over again with the palming violation when using old rules.

[coastalmarker99]

I can't imagine Lebron or any other superstars playing through a partial tear of the calf muscle in his leg as Wilt did in 1968.


Or rushing back from a total rupture of a patellar tendon in less than four months.

For context to show how incredible Wilt was.


Andre Roberson suffered the same injury as Wilt and he did not play for almost 30 months.


Jeremy lin also suffered the same injury in 2017 and missed the entire season as a result.

[Sulico]

Another dishonest post. :lol. We could go Muhammad Ali or R. Robinson if you like.

Most boxers prime when 30? When we all know that Iron Mike's prime was in his early 20's. Not all boxers peak at the same time.
Does my point keep getting over you head or what? Yet you keep mentioning his fights past his prime and even post prison lmao!
Anyone one the top 5? Yet you admit you don't follow boxing. So I guess your opinion just got pulled out of you @rs3.

Back on topic, I couldn't imagine the player's faces when they turn the ball over and over again with the palming violation when using old rules.

He was knocked out when he was 23 and that was past his prime? When was his prime? When he was 20?

[Baller789]

He was knocked out when he was 23 and that was past his prime? When was his prime? When he was 20?

You do know about Cus and the circumsatnces leading to that right?

[8Ball]

But my question was:

"So youre saying a lot of boxers today would beat up prime Mike Tyson?"

So which of these many modern boxers would beat prime Mike Tyson? Give me 5. And let me reiterate, PRIME Mike Tyson.

Oh it's releveant because your argument is basically bigger, faster stronger bs.

And it's the 1st time I heard that boxing isn't a sport. Only in Insidehoops :oldlol:

Klitschko brothers
Prime Lennox Lewis
Tyson Fury
Deontay Wilder

All these guys would smash prime Mike Tyson. They all have about 8 inches of height on him.

[Baller789]

Klitschko brothers
Prime Lennox Lewis
Tyson Fury
Deontay Wilder

All these guys would smash prime Mike Tyson. They all have about 8 inches of height on him.

Eh no. Prime Mike had amazing head movement, explosiveness and could easily close that distance.

[8Ball]

Eh no. Prime Mike had amazing head movement, explosiveness and could easily close that distance.

8 inches of height and 40 lbs of weight makes a huge ****ing difference in boxing. There is not one bookie or sports book in the world that would make Tyson a favorite prime for prime against any of those fighters.

[Sulico]

You do know about Cus and the circumsatnces leading to that right?

Excuses... Love them.

If I let just a bit of excuses into my heart my Warriors never lost a playoff series since 2015.

God damn those people who invented all that "real men doesn't use excuses" thing.

[Baller789]

8 inches of height and 40 lbs of weight makes a huge ****ing difference in boxing. There is not one bookie or sports book in the world that would make Tyson a favorite prime for prime against any of those fighters.

Yeah 40 lbs of weight, but guess who hits much harder?
Nope. Mike would be the favorite.

[Baller789]

Excuses... Love them.

If I let just a bit of excuses into my heart my Warriors never lost a playoff series since 2015.

God damn those people who invented all that "real men doesn't use excuses" thing.

Deflection. Nice try.

[Airupthere]

Kids born today are aliens and lightyears ahead of kids born in the past. Yeah right, if every kid today in the corner can play the modern game why can't the likes of jerry west, etc play the same way or even better had they been given the chance to adapt?

[Baller789]

Kids born today are aliens and lightyears ahead of kids born in the past. Yeah right, if every kid today in the corner can play the modern game why can't the likes of jerry west, etc play the same way or even better had they been given the chance to adapt?

Because kids born today wont give them the chance to adapt for fear of being exposed.

If we just transport the old players to today without them adjusting is stupid.

So for fairness sake, can we also remove all the training, tactics, moves, coaching, nutrition, and skills the modern players have learned from the older generations?

[97 bulls]

Kids born today are aliens and lightyears ahead of kids born in the past. Yeah right, if every kid today in the corner can play the modern game why can't the likes of jerry west, etc play the same way or even better had they been given the chance to adapt?

Funny thing arguably the best players in the league have dad bods like Jokic and Doncic (unatheltic). Or, they're not the most skilled like Antekoumpo. Or even more, fat out old like Lebron James.

[getting_old]

Rick Barry and Bird, and other gunners, with the freedom to shoot as many 3 pointers as they wished?


Would have been nice to see...

[Gudo]

Rick Barry and Bird, and other gunners, with the freedom to shoot as many 3 pointers as they wished?


Would have been nice to see...

You're getting old

[TheMan]

But that goes against bigger, faster, stronger and human evolution.

:milton

Lol, human evolution :roll: Evolution takes thousands of years you absolute moron, not a few generations. The uptick in athleticism is due more to modern sports training, nutrition, sports medicine and also teams nowadays put a prime on pure athleticism instead of fundamentals, that wasn't always the case. In terms of evolution, humans are basically the same as they were when Julius Ceasar was merking the enemies of Rome. In fact, scientists say the human population in general was stronger 10,000 years ago compared to today. Science wasn't keeping people with defects alive unlike today. People live a lot longer nowadays because of medicine but that doesn't mean people as a whole are stronger, to eat and survive, you needed to go out and hunt, today fat incels dweebs like the LeBron fam call Uber Eats to get some grub. Back in the day if you couldn't join the hunt and take down a woolly mammoth, you'd starve to death.

[Micku]

I don't think they would since today players on average is better than the pasts. They are more trained, more coached, and better nutrition.

But the rules do matter. There is no 3 second back then, and they could camp in the paint or back you down from the 3pt line. Help would have to come when you get the ball unless you are smart about it. Some of the moves now would be called a travel or carry back pre late 90s. If give a team in the past to analysis and adjust to the today's rules and go through the some training, then they might be able to hang as oppose to transporting them to today's game. They would see moves that they haven't seen before, and they would be able to defend or foul like they used to.

Vice versa.

The roaming around defense with zone wouldn't be a thing back then. The game was more physical, but they also didn't really try to shoot the 3. Guys would have a field day, but also have a hard time driving to the hole if on the top defense because there are multiple guys in the paint. It also depends on how they are coached. With today's mindset, they would still strive offensively, but not defensively because they would have to adjust some things.

[Bronbron23]

I don't think they would since today players on average is better than the pasts. They are more trained, more coached, and better nutrition.

But the rules do matter. There is no 3 second back then, and they could camp in the paint or back you down from the 3pt line. Help would have to come when you get the ball unless you are smart about it. Some of the moves now would be called a travel or carry back pre late 90s. If give a team in the past to analysis and adjust to the today's rules and go through the some training, then they might be able to hang as oppose to transporting them to today's game. They would see moves that they haven't seen before, and they would be able to defend or foul like they used to.

Vice versa.

The roaming around defense with zone wouldn't be a thing back then. The game was more physical, but they also didn't really try to shoot the 3. Guys would have a field day, but also have a hard time driving to the hole if on the top defense because there are multiple guys in the paint. It also depends on how they are coached. With today's mindset, they would still strive offensively, but not defensively because they would have to adjust some things.

Man you guys realize in this hypothetical the past teams would have Hindsight right? And If it was the new generation playing in previous era's they wouldn't have Hindsight. Yall act like if steph curry played in the 90's he'd shoot 10 3's a game. He wouldn't he'd shoot the same as the rest of that era's best 3 point shooters. Now if we're talking a time travel situation than that's different story.

[Baller789]

This is why matching teams from different eras is generally stupid.

I'd agree that present players are generally better because of science and medicine, but I doubt he gap is thag big. Much less for star players.

The rules also make modern players look better because the defense is handicapped.

Take KD for example. Everyone was hyping him to be this unstoppable offensive force. But we all saw how much worse he was when physcality is allowed.

[kawhileonard2]

Quite easily. 2020 Lakers and 2021 Bucks weren't that good from 3 and they won it all.

[Micku]

Man you guys realize in this hypothetical the past teams would have Hindsight right? And If it was the new generation playing in previous era's they wouldn't have Hindsight. Yall act like if steph curry played in the 90's he'd shoot 10 3's a game. He wouldn't he'd shoot the same as the rest of that era's best 3 point shooters. Now if we're talking a time travel situation than that's different story.

Yeah, that's what we are doing right? A hypothetical time travel.

I do think superstars will adjust or play well no matter what era. They are that good.

Sometimes the game adjust to them than the other way around. The rules may or may not help them be more efficient. Like guys like Pistol Pete was ahead of his time. He do moves that you still never see. Bob Macdoo. Willis Reed would still be good. Let alone guys like MJ, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Kareem etc, etc. But the average nba player is a little different. It depends the rules and play style. It'll affect how well they can play.